Talk:William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield/GA1

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

Hi: Let me start by saying that this was an amazing article. Detailed, interesting to read, extremely well-researched. I don't have ready access to the Heward biography of Mansfield, and as this is my first GA review, I hope that's acceptable. If not, please do inform me.
 * 1) Well written:
 * 2) *On prose and grammar, this piece is generally speaking really good; it's better than many of our FAs. You do want to be a little careful about overly long sentences, however. Here are a few specific nitpicks:
 * 3) *#In the last paragraph of the "early life and education" section, the sentence beginning with "This was seen as Murray showing his support ..." doesn't quite read right. One doesn't show support clear. Did you mean making his support clear, or showing support clearly, or ...?
 * 4) *#The following sentence is also just a touch problematic. The first clause is in the passive voice. "And" is a conjunction separating two clauses; thus, the second clause should have its own subject as well.
 * 5) *#The first sentence of the section "At the English Bar" is too long, and there's still the issue with "and" being a conjunction whose second clause requires a subject.
 * 6) *#You may want to replace "As such, Murray's practical training ..." with "Thus, Murray's pratical training ..."
 * 7) *#The paragraph on his wife is peculiarly placed ... is a section on family life customary? I realize that's beyond the scope of the GA criteria, so that's no bar. I just found it odd.
 * 8) *#The sentence "This meant that almost all the work ..." is awkward to read. Maybe it can be split into smaller pieces?
 * 9) *#At the end of the mercantile law section, I'm not sure what provoked criticism -- Murray's opinion, or the fact that it was overruled?
 * 10) *#The copyright law section opening is a bit strange. Why was the decision criticized as being shortsighted? I assume it's obvious to people with knowledge of policy issues surrounding copyright, but not necessarily to the average reader. Also, the placing of a judgment before the exposition has a bit of a POV tinge.
 * 11) *#The last sentence of the copyright section is confusing. Was Murray's judgment overruled in that particular case, or was it the precedent that was overturned?
 * 12) *#The legal discussion about slavery in England at the end of the section on abolition is confusing. Did Murray effectively outlaw slavery or didn't he? If he did, there's no need to confuse the reader about the bizarre legal technicalities. If he didn't, then what was the impact on slavery?
 * 13) *#Did you mean to say "Despite failing health, Murray" or "Despite failing health Murray," ?
 * 14) *#You shouldn't say he was guilty of nepotism without explaining at least a little, unless the sources don't go there.
 * 15) *With respect to the individual Manual of Style guidelines:
 * 16) *#WP:LEAD says you should put his significance up front in the first paragraph, and the first sentence should illustrate his notability. The current setup doesn't quite do that, although it is all there in the introduction. Other than that, everything's fine.
 * 17) *#WP:LAYOUT: Great.
 * 18) *#WP:MOSDEF: Great.
 * 19) *#WP:WTA: I didn't exactly grep every word on our "not-to-use" list, but nothing struck me as wrong.
 * 20) *#WP:WAF: Not applicable.
 * 21) *#WP:EMBED: Not applicable
 * 22) Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes. I checked all the little references. I could. Sole nitpick -- does Heward say Murray is best known for the Somersett case? I don't think Foss did; merely listing it among the things for which he would be forever remembered. I didn't have Heward, but everything strikes me as really good.
 * 23) Broad in coverage It definitely addresses the main points of Murray's career as Lord Chief Justice and as a lawyer, and goes into good detail about his royalist political leanings. The article qualifies here. Some points if you're striving for comprehensive coverage, however: there's relatively little about his family, which, given a happy marriage of many decades, I'd expect there to be something -- and there was that tantalizing reference to nepotism. Politically was he a Tory or a Whig, or did he get along with both factions? Given that he was first in the Commons, then Lord Chief Justice and active in his own right in the Lords, factional affiliation is somewhat important. I'm guessing he was a Whig since he was in the North and Pelham ministries, but his unwillingness to buck the King points in another direction. The reader is left a little confused.
 * 24) Neutral: Yup. Qualifies. That nitpick over copyright law was over appearances, not substance.
 * 25) Stable Yup.
 * 26) Illustrated Yup.

There you go. I'll put it on hold for the usual 7 days to address my little nits, but I don't anticipate any serious difficulties. You guys did an amazing job, and this was a pleasure to read; I learned a good bit about this fascinating figure. Ray Talk 03:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Guy, actually :P. Could you clarify the points you made under criteria 1, please? I'm not a big grammar person, and locating the issue with a passive voice and conjuctions etc. etc. is not really my thing. I'll keep your later points in mind for when I shiny this up to eventually send it to FAC. The para on his wife is there because the events surrounding his marriage to her and the contacts he gained from it helped further his career from that point onwards; I thought it best to explain his relationship to figure X before figure X suddenly turns up in another paragraph helping him advance (making him Attorney General, for example). His marriage was rather boring; no children, no disputes, they were perfectly happy. As such there really isn't much to cover. I await your clarification of section 1; so far I've ticked off points 1.1, and 1.6 through to 1.12 (although you may want to take a look at my corrections in response to 1.10, I'm not sure if I've clarified them sufficiently. I do have a tendency to go all lawyeresque, I'm afraid). Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review, by the way :). Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All by yourself? Wow :)
 * 1.2: Sorry for being pedantic and confusing. Passive voice is usually not recommended -- the "It is thought that this was done" construction suggests that something happened to Murray, rather than Murray acting. The conjunction thing is just that a comma followed by "and" separates two clauses; getting rid of the comma would make "and" separate two phrases, which would be correct. If it would still be consistent with the meaning, I suggest something like "He probably did this because, having no private income, he wished to secure patronage to help him advance politically."
 * 1.3: First choice: you can make it "and he was one of those rare people ..." instead of "and was one of those ...." This is because when you conjoin two clauses with a comma and "and," the second clause needs to have its own subject. Second choice: if you use "and" to conjoin two phrases, then we wouldn't need to insert "he," but the comma would be inappropriate (that would mean striking the comma). It's up to you which one you like better; I prefer the first since the sentence is long and could use commas.
 * 1.4: I'm just being pedantic here; "such" is meant to stand in for something already mentioned. In this case, it is only inferred: "a person in an era without formal legal education." "Therefore" or "thus" doesn't have this issue. There's a cute blog entry on the topic.
 * 1.5: Gotcha. With respect to the wife and family, I see your point. I don't know if the FA types will want more, but you're good for GA, surely.
 * 1.10: This looks good.
 * Cheers, Ray  Talk 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto, done all of them. For 1.3 I've changed it to "..Scottish-born barrister who was said to be the first Scot to practice at the English Bar, and one of the few people who was qualified to act as a barrister in both England and Scotland" just because to me it read better. If you want me to bring it in line with your original suggestion just give the word. Ironholds (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, we're done. Congratulations! Let me go figure out how to list this, and it should show up as GA soon. Ray  Talk 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)