Wikipedia:Peer review/Court of Session (Scotland)/Archive 1

Court of Session (Scotland)
I have extensively rewrote this article, and would welcome feedback on how it could be further improved. Comments that also address the question of whether it could achieve FA status would be especially welcome. Thanks, AGK 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * A bit of the infobox text appears wrongly written. "Composition method: Appointed by Monarch with name presented Prime Minister—with the advice of the First Minister of Scotland..." What does that mean? Names of possible appointees are presented (i.e. submitted) by the Prime Minister, or the names of the appointed are submitted to the Prime Minister for final approval? There is a big difference in the two. And either way suggests they are all political or royal appointees, which they are not (I hope). Meowy  16:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That should be "presented by the Prime Minister". Vacancies in judicial office are filled by the Monarch, so that parameter of the infobox is otherwise correct (if clumsily worded). Cf this web page. Thanks for contributing, Meowy; most peer reviews take some weeks before they are given attention! AGK 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, happy to help a little. For the infobox, isn't it really only a symbolic Royal appointment, and also only a symbolic presentation? The Queen can't decide to say "no", and the Prime Minister hasn't personally decided "I want so-and-so for the position of judge, but I don't want what's-his-name". Shouldn't the text be changed a bit to reflect that (same for the High Court of Justiciary article)? I'm just thinking that the impression shouldn't be given that senior judges in Scotland are political appointees. Meowy 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Cptnono Nice work and good idea on the recent rewrite.Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about different court systems so am not the best judge of such an article. As someone who knows so little, this article appears to be a great backbone with factual sources and is well linked to other pages discussing the overall system. However, some of these Wikilinks might be better explained in the text to provide a one stop read for the reader. You obviously don't want to go into too much detail but I found my self navigating away from the page more than I would have liked.
 * I noticed that there is information covered in the lead and not the main body of the article.
 * Should a new section be devoted to judges or can that be worked into the existing prose?
 * In particular, 4 women judges is made to look remarkable. Could a line be added explaining the situation (how, when, etc)?
 * Are the other note worthy aspects of the judges?
 * History seems too light. The court has been around for sometime and you make it clear that it has mainly stayed the same but the summary of that many centuries in such a concise manner was surprising. You only have so many sources available, of course.
 * Does a source go into detail on why King James V started it? What was the first case? Any response to its founding?
 * Any big cases in its time?
 * Location. What other physical buildings has it occupied?
 * Does source #3 need "(in English)"
 * I didn't see a manual of style for structure of such articles at WikiProject Law. They do list some current GAs that might help with ideas: Oregon Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Indiana, Gun Court.


 * Thank you for your comments, Cptnono. Your input is appreciated. I've added this review to my list of stuff to work on for this article. Hopefully your points will be addressed soon. :-) Best, AGK 22:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Update : A good article status review of this article is currently open. Any input would probably be more useful if directed there: Talk:Court of Session/GA1. Thanks, AGK 22:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was moved to Court of Session Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)