Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exchequer of Pleas/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011.

Exchequer of Pleas

 * Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfils the necessary criteria. What other reasons are there? :p. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good enough reason, I guess. And I suppose I'd better play devil's advocate as one of the local counsel.  I'll do it over the next two-three days, probably in installments.  A quick glance looked really good!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thank my learned friend for his submission :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Media review - All good here. Ironholds should do image description pages more often; I got a laugh from the lead image's Author section.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not include both authors in citations to Fritze?
 * Is Vincent 1903 or 1993?
 * Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * Check wikilinking in Bibliography
 * What does UNC stand for? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All fixed or clarified in the text; I can't find any double periods. Could you point them out to me? Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, found it :). Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Enjoyable read, but then I'm a lawyer with a liking for legal history. A number of issues:
 * Lede
 * The lede seems a discouragement to reading, with two rather heavy paragraph. I would like to see much more of a highlights approach, paragraphs of no more than four sentences, and no more than three (in a pinch, four) paragraphs.
 * Attempted a fix; what do you think?.
 * History
 * "followed the king as he went " Perhaps a more formal term than "went"?  In his travels?
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * " was the oldest common law court," Perhaps "first", which sets up a pleasing dichotomy between "first" and "last".
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the word "split" is used fairly often. Consider substituting synonyms.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "There are few other records earlier than 1580," Other than ... and is it actually more accurate to state "known to date from before 1580"?
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Dukes were seen " by whom? do not let the passive voice deprive the reader of detail.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fanshawe's procedures were considered excellent," procedures for what? Courtroom?  Administration?  Or are we talking form pleadings here?
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * " and the Court of Requests became invalid after the Privy Seal was lost, which it was dependant upon for its jurisdiction" I looked at the Court of Requests and am no wiser about what happened to the Privy Seal.  I think you need to be a bit clearer.  Did someone forget the key to the washroom and it became inoperative?
 * Done, but you may want to read through and check it; not entirely sure it parses. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if this article thinks the ECW ended in 1649, or in 1660. And I think something specific needs to be said about what happened to this court under the Commonwealth.
 * Clarify? And I'm afraid I can't find any coverage of that period.
 * "18th-century Acts of Parliament treated them as the same body, merely referring to "courts of equity" " Would it be more accurately that the acts treated them the same way, rather than as the same body?
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did the court become suddenly unpopular in the 1830s? Presumably its appellate procedure had not changed, or had it?  I think there needs to be a bit more exposition here, and also a contrast with appeals from the Court of Chancery, which I gather was more loser-friendly?  Does it have a connection with Fanshawe's procedures being considered until the 1830s?
 * It hadn't been; the appellate procedure for other courts, however, had been much reformed. I can stick in a "This contrasted with the Court of Chancery, where..." bit, if that would help? Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be some cleanup around the Brougham quote, you are diving back along the timeline. Perhaps say that there had long been calls for the merger of the common law courts, and that in 1828, Henry Brougham, a future Lord Chancellor, stated ...
 * Done; will do the rest of the fixes this afternoon. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would strike the word "finally". A bit POV.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jurisdiction
 * "This meant that the King's Attorney General represented the plaintiff, allowing him to avoid much of the legal costs associated with a court case" Perhaps "The king was represented by his Attorney General, allowing him to avoid many of the costs of litigation."
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "the better that they could pay the King; " Perhaps "so that they could better pay the king". Your uses of "king" and "King" appear inconsistent.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * " The court was also used to enforce the law by prosecuting clerics who, while innocent, had come close to committing an infraction ..." This sentence is unclear.  It also needs dividing.  It's not clear why the AG would have no incentive to compromise.  Even if the King isn't going to be on the hook for lawyer's fees, there's always the question of court time and attorney time and effort to be considered.  If the AG doesn't have to try the Smith case, he can spend the afternoon playing golf or the contemporary equivalent.
 * Done the first bit. Re the second, I would assume (solely OR on my part) that, given the expectation that the AG would enforce the law harshly, he wouldn't want to participate in any compromise that would weaken the final settlement and lessen him in the eyes of the monarch. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Exchequer was unique in having jurisdiction in matters of both equity and the common law, the latter curtailed after the Magna Carta and reserved for the Court of King's Bench and Court of Common Pleas. " After giving this paragraph three minute's hard study, I decided you mean that the common law jurisdiction of the Exchequer was temporarily curtailed by Magna Carta, but later grew back.  I would clarify this
 * Done, I think. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that the second paragraph could easily be merged into other material, the first two sentences into the first paragraph of this section and the final sentence into the history section. I'm not sure about the rest of the paragraph, but I'd suggest that it is duplicative of matter found elsewhere, for the most part.
 * "The Exchequer stood on an equal footing ..." This paragraph needs to be clarified as to time.
 * Which paragraph, sorry? Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The incident involving the Red Book, is that King's Bench to Exchequer or the other way around? It's a bit unclear.
 * "a clerk would bring the Red Book of the Exchequer to the King's Bench" seems fairly clear; am I missing something?
 * If that constituted the transmittal, fine. It could be thought the clerk was coming to fetch the transmittal, placing it in the red book.
 * You mention appeals to the Exchequer Chamber. I thought the problem with the court was the only way out was a (rarely granted) appeal to the Lords?
 * I've rechecked the source, and that's what it says, although this appears to fly in the face of, well...reality. Urgh. Suggestions?

Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess let it go.
 * Officers
 * " scrapped" The only things that get scrapped in a featured article are made of metal
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Treasurer played no real role in the Exchequer of Pleas, than I'd begin the subsection "The formal head ..."
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "detached from" independent from.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I would lower case war throughout except when being used as part of a title.
 * So "the civil war" as opposed to "the Civil War"? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "a 5th" Perhaps a substitute? I would spell out "5th" as "fifth".  Please look at WP:ORDINAL.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unlike in the Court of King's Bench, the positions were meaningless, in that each Baron had an equal vote in decisions" Well, it wasn't actually meaningless, it determined seniority and precedence.  Perhaps a rephrase?
 * Given the Queen's Remembrancer's continuing responsibility for the Trial of the Pyx, did the Court of the Exchequer have any role in it?
 * Not as far as I'm aware. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. An interesting effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Waiting for completion. Yes, on the point about appellate procedure, a very brief contrast with Chancery would be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jenks24: Lead
 * As Wehwalt says, it's an interesting read and (from the perspective of someone who has never written an FA) it looks like it should pass FAC. I did have some nitpicks, though:
 * "split from the curia during the 1190s, sitting as an" – not sure why, but I'd change "sitting" --> "to sit"
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "much of this business went to the Exchequer" – sorry for being dense, but what business? Do you mean business that had originally gone to the Court of Chancery?
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "drew closer and closer" – don't think the "and closer" is really necessary, but as the Yanks say, YMMV
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "brought by the king" – it's pedantic, but I'd change "king" --> "crown" (or "monarch") as there were queens during the Court of Exchequer's existence
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Origins
 * "It was originally claimed" – do we know by who? Completely off topic, should I have written "whom" then?
 * No idea, to both :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "pre-Conquest Normandy" --> "pre-conquest Normandy" per Norman conquest of England?
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that "first concrete records" is incredibly formal/encyclopedic in tone
 * Is that a problem? If so, suggestions....? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, sorry, I meant to say it's not incredibly formal. Basically my suggestion would be to change "concrete" to something like "reliable" or "verifiable". Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "In the 1190s the Exchequer separated from the curia regis, a process which continued until the beginning of the 13th century" – this feels a bit odd, does it mean that the Exchequer continued to separate further away or that it had rejoined the curia regis at the start of the 13th century?
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Increasing work and transformation
 * I think it would be better to tell it in chronological order – you seem to tell what happened in the 1547 to 1612 period before the 1501 to 1546 period
 * Not quite sure how to rearrange, to be honest; suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, just read over that section a few times and I'm not so sure anymore. Feel free to disregard the above this comment. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "it was led by the Lord Chancellor, a political figure who had been intimately involved in the conflict" – possibly worth naming and linking the actual bloke who was reviled, not just his position, unless that revulsion carried over for multiple Lord Chancellors
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Loss of equity jurisdiction and dissolution Jurisdiction and relationship with other courts
 * Looks good
 * "coming into play" is not that formal/encyclopedic
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "payment of a debt to the King" – again, it would be my inclination to change "King" to "crown" or "monarch"
 * Worth linking "supersedeas" to supersedeas or supersedeas?
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Treasurer
 * "scrapped" not very formal
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Chancellor Barons
 * Looks good
 * I would suggest changing "1st Baron", 2nd Baron", etc. to "First Baron" and so on (the MoS does not like ordinals), but if the literature is adamant then I guess it's ok
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Remembrancer
 * "After 1820, the Remembrancer's broad duties were split up by the Court of Exchequer (England) etc. Act 1820. Instead, two masters were appointed" – I don't think "instead" is right here...
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Other offices As I said at the top, very nice article. I also made a few tweaks myself, so please check to make sure I haven't screwed anything up. Jenks24 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good
 * Cool; have I missed any of your concerns? I think I got them all. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Thanks for the prompt replies and fixes, I believe you've addressed all my concerns. Just had a quick re-read and nothing jumps out at me, so I'm happy to support (I think it meets the criteria for prose, referencing, neutrality, MoS, etc.). Hope you continue writing articles like this even though you've recently been busy spamming people on WMF business :) Jenks24 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support All looks good. Congratulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Spotcheck, clear ( 9/67 citations ; 3/14 sources) my area of history is labour, not law. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I made sure all pre 1950 sources were used appropriately.
 * fns 6; 19 & 20; 10, 11, 12, 29, 31 & 53
 * fn20 Kerly 272's capacity to support the claim of the Court of Appeals in Chancery is obscure to me, but this may be due to an inability to make basic obvious and permissible legal syntheses?
 * Re Guth (2008): Isn't W. Hamilton Bryson entitled to be identified as the source of these thoughts?  Maybe the citation of editors only, instead of chapter authors with their chapter title, is a matter of style in this field.
 * fn12 is maybe a little tightly page numbered given it spreads over multiple (yet adjacent) pages. This isn't bad, its a matter of style, but one I find a little foreign.  I've previously noted I was raised on strict Turabian.
 * fn53 is an excellent example of admirable and loose paraphrasing, the way we should paraphrase.
 * On the last point - thank you :). What do you mean with "9/67 citations ; 3/14 sources"? Ironholds (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked 9 citations of 67 citations that existed (~1/7th of the citations); I checked 3 of the 14 sources used (~1/7th). Given that it is a "spot" check, not a thorough check, I wanted to indicate how large of a spot I checked.  This lets the delegates and other readers know how representative my issues are—if I check one citation and find something wrong, I could be cherry picking?  It lets you determine if the errors (if any) mean you need to go over the work.  Given that the only issue I found was with footnote 20 (and I assume the issue is I don't know how to read institutional law sources correctly), that would indicate that there isn't much to worry about. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Argh, I can't actually see the source for some reason - it cuts out that page and the page after in google books, and my normal resource (a wonderful closed archive of classic legal texts) is now not present thanks to the whole graduation thing :(. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the Kerly book? Whatabout one of these links? BencherliteTalk 23:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are a bloody lifesaver. Fifelfoo, I seem to have bollocksed up transferring that ref over; now replaced with the actual ref. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I'm sorry, I can't support on prose because there are a lot of little things that don't quite sound right ... but I really suspect it's my lack of skill and not yours. I'll be watching, in case I can help with fielding questions. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Apologies for raising the dust on this apparently abandoned review, but I agree with Dank about the prose, and I'm not altogether happy about the lack of context in the lead for statements such as "The Court of Chancery's reputation for tardiness and expense resulted in much of its business transferring to the Exchequer." Here's just one example of a problem with the prose:


 * "The Exchequer was unique in having jurisdiction in matters of both equity and the common law, the latter initially curtailed after the Magna Carta and reserved for the Court of King's Bench and Court of Common Pleas, although it later grew back." What "later grew back" exactly? The very best you can say about that phrasing is that it's ugly.

I could give many more examples of clunky prose, but this isn't supposed to be a peer review, so I won't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. In Google Books I found A concise history of the common law by Theodore Frank Thomas Plucknet, a 2001 history which has a section on the Exchequer of Pleas with information that I don't see in the article. Shouldn't this material be included? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.