Talk:Chancery Amendment Act 1858/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mootros (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well-written?
I have major reservations in terms of the clarity of the text. It needs serious copy editing. It is logically inconsistent in places (see below section "background"), as not carefully worded to convey correct meaning. This is rather unfortunate, because the main author as done good research and created an article with high potential to achieve the status of a "good article". Mootros (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are also jargon/ grammar issues. For example: A relatively small act, the Act contained only 12 sections, several (including the first one) procedural

Should it not be: "... of which several (including the first one) were procedural ones." Also there are assumptions that the reader knows what procedural in terms of an act of parliament means. Simple subordinate clause could easily remedy this: "The Act is relatively small, containing only 12 sections, including several sections on procedures that merely specify...

Mootros (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't really "in a parliamentary term", it's in an english language term. Procedural - to do with procedure. I'll change it now. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ A procedure for what? You see this is what I mean with well written. It makes a lot of assumptions that the reader knows already a lot. Mootros (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the intro slightly. It should states key points and leave the reader wanting to read more. However, mentioning that the act is still in place elsewhere (i.e. New Zealand), is not useful without explaining in more detail how it got there. Mootros (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Intro
 * I've made some further changes for clarification. Pls check if this looks OK. Thanks. Mootros (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, done. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Background

Copy editing necessary. E.g. sentences like this are very long and not participial particularly well-written: This meant that a winning party in a chancery case who sought to claim damages was forced to open a second claim in a common law court, filling the courts with unnecessary cases and causing additional expense for the parties, and the same was true of winners of common law cases who sought specific performance or injunctions.
 * Divided in two. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to check is the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 the "equivalent act" for common law courts? If so, it's not clear, when "Rules on court jurisdiction meant that common law courts could not grant orders of specific performance or injunctions.." is mentioned, that already 4 years prior to the act this had changed. Especially, since it says next: "The same was true of winners of common law cases who sought specific performance or injunctions." Mootros (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * that's background information. By definition, that gives a background - what was the history of the situation? What were significant changes or situations that impacted on the passing of the Act? Clarity is given, because the next sentence is "The common law courts were authorised to issue injunctions and orders of specific performance by the Common Law Procedure Act 1854, but nothing in the Act mentioned the Chancery courts". Essentially: "During the 19th century, the situation was X. Many people thought this was silly, so the situation was changed to Y. In an attempt to make it even less silly, it was changed to Z". Forgive me if I don't take structural and grammar advice from somebody who claims sentences are "not participial well-written" :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ In my opinion, it is convoluted and partially inaccurate (for the period from 1854-1958). It needs simpler constructions (throughout the text)! Also why so specific: why "winners"? Why not cases? Does this mean that one had to win in one type of court before going to the other court? If so, I didn't read anything about this in here. Mootros (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Ironholds, I think seven days have passed. I take your comment about my spelling mistakes on this talk pages as an indication that you do not want to work with me together and edit in the light of my advice and suggestion. I therefore will not extent the time for this article to be on hold and would like to conclude now. I apologies if I have offended you or if my words regarding this this article were too harsh. I hope this will not hinder future collaboration. All the best. Yours, Mootros (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was waiting on a reply for you. I made a point above about clarity and needed a reply as to whether you thought my counter-argument was convincing, that wasn't me deciding "waaa! I don't like him, I'm not going to edit the article!". Ironholds (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The amount of red links are unusually high. Mootros (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Red links
 * I could delink, but it seems a bit unneeded. I've been slowly working my way through statute lists writing up articles, and there should be at least a stub there in a couple of months. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm just a little bit concerned that someone mights say, that the article then should only pass when the red links are populated. Perhaps we should get other opinions on this point. Mootros (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redlinks aren't part of the Good Article criteria, or the Featured Article criteria, for that matter. They feature in featured lists, because lists are organised directions to other places, and it matters if those places don't exist, but it doesn't really have an impact on a standalone article. Ironholds (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To drop in here uninvited (I hope neither of you mind) - redlinks are good things. They're essential to building the encyclopedia; removing meaningful topic links, or making a hasty third-class stub just to turn the link blue, is a bit of a disservice to our readers. All the redlinks are to individual statutes; every one of those will, it's safe to conjecture, either be a valid topic in its own right or be redirected to a general article on a set of laws. I don't think there's any need to push to fill them now... it won't actually improve this article, and it's best those other articles get written at their own pace when there's time to do them well. Shimgray | talk | 10:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Very useful. I now rest assured that this is fine. No objections from my side. Mootros (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral?
Yes. Mootros (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Stable?
Yes. Mootros (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images?
Yes, one relevant image, with appropriate right.Mootros (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)