Talk:Inns of Chancery/GA1

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


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
Having quickly scan-read through the article a couple of times, it appears to be fairly comprehensive, illustrated and well-referenced; and about GA standard. I'll, therefore, continue with the review in some detail, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope
I prefer to leave the WP:lead until last. It is intended to form two functions: provide an introduction to the article and to summarise the main points. By reviewing it last, it is far easier to evaluate whether it does both jobs. However, in this case, it needs to be considered first.

Conundrum - Summarising the article in about a paragraph. The lead states that the Inns were legal institutions that changed their function over time, died out and were demolished. The History section discusses training of baristers and then the provision of accommodation and offices, later dinning clubs. The Inns section gives a history of the individual inns and whom they were named after, etc. At least one of which was an inn, i.e. a hostel.

From this, I believe that the WP:lead is inadeqate, possibly other sections might need consideration as well. The Inns were buildings that housed a function that changed over time; and the functions became legal institutions. The History section is mostly about what happened in the Inns, i.e. the functions/legal institutions and the Inns section is mostly about the buildings, who they were named after, and sometimes notable occupants.

I'm put the article On Hold at this point for the nominator to consider the article as a whole: i.e is the lead adequate and the two sections, their titles and content, fit for purpose? Inns of Chancery can mean both the buildings and the fuctions, is the article balanced, you can't demolish a legal institution? The article is (appears) to be well-referenced, so I assume at this point it is compliant with WP:verify; and the prose is OK. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your summary confuses me - what exactly do you feel should be changed, and how do you feel this should be done? Ironholds (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That was quick. I'm suggesting that (1) you might like to consider whether the WP:lead adequately describes the scope of the article; and, having done that, (2) consider the body of the article. I don't wish to rewrite the article and force "my" version on you. I'm suggesting, for instance, for the purpose of clarifing my remarks above:


 * "The Inns of Chancery or Hospida Cancellarie were a group of buildings, Inns, in London, that were used by used as offices for the clerks of chancery. The clerks drew their name from the Inn that they occupied. The Inns became legal institutions, and were initially attached to the Inns of Court. Existing from at least 1344, the Inns gradually changed their purpose, and became both the offices and accommodation for solicitors (as the Inns of Court were to barristers) and a place of initial training for barristers." .........


 * As a first attempt, the prose is not all the good; but it (to me) emphasises the point that "Inn" is being used as a description for both a building and an institution. Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see your point. I'm only trying to use it as a description of a legal institution. How would you advise going about that? Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, they way that the article currently exists, that description is not quite true: see for instance-


 * Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to my intent, not my practice. Alright, I'll sleep on it and try and think of what changes I can make. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I've made a (slight) tweak to make it clear it's a group of buildings as well. Any additional suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days. OK, I'll accept that change to the WP:Lead and I'll carry on with the review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article: a well-referenced and researched article. I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)