Talk:Statute of Uses/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * The prose is relatively good. There are a few concerns of sentences that run-on slightly or are a bit wordy, combining two topics which would be better served as two distinct sentences.
 * "The Statute was originally conceived by Henry VIII of England as a way to rectify his financial problems by simplifying the often-confusing law of uses, one of the applications of which moved land outside the royal tax revenue, traditionally gathered through seisin."
 * ✅ Addressed
 * "Academics disagree on how the Commons brought around, with Holdsworth saying that the lawyers were swayed to support Henry, but an eventual set of bills introduced in 1535 were passed by both the Lords and Commons."
 * With regards to the second quote, "how the Commons brought around" should be reworded to be more clear.
 * In addition, I think the following section from the lede is made a bit unclear due to the included quote. Perhaps the quote is better suited for the main section.
 * ✅ Addressed
 * "While most agree that it was important, with Eric Ives writing that 'the importance of the Statute of Uses is beyond doubt. The effect which its provisions had upon the development of English land law was revolutionary, and from it have grown the crucial doctrines of the trust', some say that by allowing uses and devises in certain areas it not only failed to remove the fraudulent element from land law but actively encouraged it."
 * ✅ Addressed
 * On a side note, while this is not a GA concern, it is a concern that should be addressed anyway. A few sections use passive voice to discuss content where active voice would be superior. I may try to address these issues post-review. An example is this section, which would be better as "but it again met resistance":
 * "The Parliament of 1532 saw another attempt by Henry to push the bill through, but it was again resisted; while the support of the nobility was valuable, it was useless in the Commons."
 * Addressed; there may be more uses of passive voice, but this is not a GAC concern.


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * Solid all-around.

Factually written and verifiable

 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * Good


 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 * Almost perfect. There is one item I think is missing a reference in the final paragraph:
 * The reference is the same reference in the next sentence, so the citation is accurate.
 * "Academic assessment of the Statute was initially disparaging, with some saying that it added at most 'three words to a conveyance', but it was understood to be important by lawyers of the time and in the modern era."


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * Well-referenced content

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * The topic appears to be covered.


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The topic does not go off on tangents but addresses needed content.

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Neutrality is maintained while addressing both sides of the debate in the statute's passing.

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Not even close to an edit war.

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * All images are public-domain.


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * OK, but it may be reasonable to add an infobox similar to the GA Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907.

General comments
The prose could use a little work. It is not poor by any standards, but it is a little heavy. The concerns in the first section of the review summarize this problem. Overall, the article is good, it just needs a little trimming and a second look.

Overall
On hold while the above concerns are addressed.
 * Think I've got all of it; tell me if there are any passive voice concerns. The "unreferencedd" quote uses the Ives inline. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good after adjustments. Overall pass. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 10:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)