Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Lords/archive1

House of Lords
-- Emsworth 00:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) Geogre 21:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Should have a picture of the Chamber. Dbiv 11:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Having searched, I was unable to find one that is of the appropriate copyright status; a request has not yielded any results, either. This image may be available (see http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hcio/images.cfm here], but I am not confident, as the page is marked "Parliamentary Copyright." -- Emsworth 20:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object; where are the references? Support. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - I think the "external links" (including the 1911 EB(!)) must be references and have amended accordintly). -- ALoan (Talk)
 * Support. Excellent writing. Zerbey 17:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support--Enceladus 20:14, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, strongly. Great work. GeneralPatton 20:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now: The references are pretty light and antique.  Additionally, though, there is a severe telescoping of history.  For example, we get "The power of the two Houses grew slowly, but was restrained by the numerous civil wars that plagued the country during the mediæval era."  And then we hurry on to the 19th century.  If one is going to go into extraordinary detail about every politician that attempted to limit Lords's power in the 19th century, then one ought not brush away 400 years of development at a stroke.  If nothing else, it seems to me that the planetary motion of power in Lords in the "medieval" period needs to be summarized more than this.  (I.e. with Edward II, the barons usurped the throne.  With the War of the Roses, it was a split entirely in true civil war.  Because Lords represented people who had claims on the throne (even the Lords Spiritual often did), and since they had their own armies and "impregnable" fortresses, their power's wax and wane had a lot to do with the power of the throne itself, and certainly not a teeter-totter with Commons.)  I think either some discussion of that fuzzy spot needs to be introduced or some of the detail of 19th century political crises needs more summary treatment.  Also, the practice of selling titles is antique.  George III gets blamed, but that, I suspect, is due to the historians and not the facts, for contemporaries blamed James I, Charles I, and George II for the same things.
 * I have attempted to address these, especially the reference and history-related objections. -- Emsworth 01:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support with one more cleaning and examination of the references. Great answering of the objection on the history.  It is much, much more even-handed now.  The references are still a little...odd.  Blackstone is, for example, authoritative, but not really an overview source.  All the same, with a little cleaning and bolstering of references, just a little, fully support. Geogre 03:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Undecided: For the following reasons:
 * With reference to selling titles: In the early 20th century so many brewers, and similar types, donated to political party funds and consequently obtained titles, the peerage was referred to by the British Royal Family and aristocracy of Europe as the 'beerage'. Should some mention be made of this quite recent history?
 * I may be wrong here, but does the European Court in Strasbourg not have the final say over the House of Lords in British judicial matters now ? Giano 21:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The tern "beerage," I think, may not be of too much historical significance, compared to the other issues discussed in the history section. The Court in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights, only hears complaints from the Council of Europe, not British judicial matters.
 * I think it should be made clear in the article that since Britain's entry to the EEC, the House of Lord is no longer the last form of redress, this is now the European Court. Giano 10:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's slightly misleading. Individuals can't appeal to the European Court of Justice (though courts may ask it for rulings). And the European Court of Human Rights is not a court of appeal as normally understood. Certainly the relationship between these courts could do with an decent article, but I'm not sure House of Lords is the right place. Gdr 11:55, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
 * There is a separate article on judicial functions of the House of Lords. The HL remains the final court of appeal in the UK, but it may be worth mentioning that, as such, the HL is obliged to make references of "preliminary questions" to the European Court of Justice (the court of the European Union, in Luxembourg) in cases where interpretation of EC law is on point (unlike lower courts, which are merely empowered to refer questions):  however, the HL makes the final decision once the ECJ has opined.  There is no appeal from the HL to the ECJ.  As Gdr says, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights and is completely separate (it was created under the aegis of the Council of Europe, not the EC/EEC/EU): you don't appeal from the HL to the ECHR, although you need to have exhausted your UK domestic remedies before your start in Strasbourg. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The sentence "The House of Lords remained more powerful than the House of Commons, but the Lower House did continue to grow in influence, reaching its zenith during the reigns of the Stuart monarchs in the early seventeenth century" seems quite misleading to me. Surely the Commons reached its zenith in the early interregnum (or perhaps now), not in the reign of the Stuarts? Gdr 11:55, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
 * Is this referring to the zenith of the Lords? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Just for whatever it's worth, while the sentence could get a rewrite, I can see that Commons reached its height at the Long Parliament, but, at that point, there was no Parliament, since Lords was gone. Perhaps "zenith in relation to Lords?"  Pretty much the next sentence points out that Lords was dismissed by Commons at the outset of the Interregnum. (I.e. during the Interregnum, people don't talk about Commons anymore.  They just say "Parliament."  Again, just FWIW.)  Geogre 16:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Addressed, I hope. -- Emsworth 20:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. James F. (talk) 01:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)