Talk:Statute of Monopolies/GA1

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "Normally seen as a key moment in the evolution of patent law ...". I'm unclear what "normally" is implying here.


 * "The Statute repealed all past and future patents and monopolies ... Even with the statute in force ...". The word "statute" is inconsistently capitalised throughout the article; I personally wouldn't capitalise it all, just as "bill" isn't capitalised here: "James I was in the later stages of the bill supportive of its principles".


 * Background
 * "Over the next century, this became a more common practice in England". It's not clear what the "this" is referring to here; is it the granting of full industrial patents discussed at the end of the previous paragraph, or is it the granting of letters of protection?


 * Act
 * "The most important part of the Statute is Section 6, which laid out ...". The conjunction of the present tense "is" and the past tense "laid" jars here.


 * "odious monopolies" is quoted twice in the final paragraph, which seems a bit ott.


 * Significance
 * "not only did the Statute of Monopolies only restate the previous common law ...". The "only ... only" looks a bit awkward. What about "merely restate"?


 * Bibliography
 * Is the author's surname Pile as it says here or Pila as it says in the citations?


 * All should be fixed; yup, Pila, not Pile. Ironholds (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Everything looks fine to me now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)