Talk:Tom Denning, Baron Denning/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have a full review up soon. Whitehorse1 has also expressed an interest in this article (see my talk page), and so may be dropping by with a few comments. Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Early life and studies section, the last paragraph, it says "obtained a first". Could you explain/wikilink this please?

   • Fixed.Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • In the War work section, the last sentence says "and was in hospital for". I changed this to "in the hospital", but had my edit reverted. Is "in hospital" a common British term? It sounds very odd to my American ears...

   • A common British idiom, yes; with this being an article about something exclusively British I guess it should stay. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Also, the section title "War work" sounds odd. What would the editors think of perhaps changing this to "War service" or something similar?

   • Works for me. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • In the first paragraph of the High Court section, it says "with Mr Justice Glyn-Jones greeting him". Was the man's first name Justice, or are titles doubled up?

   • "Mr Justice" is the term used to refer to a High Court judge, yes, so for Henry McCardie, for example, sources would refer to him as "Mr Justice McCardie". Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • In the last paragraph of the Master of the Rolls section, it says "one of his legs had shortened an inch and a half". Do the sources say why? Disease, injury, etc?

   • Afraid not, no. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • In the first paragraph of the Other work section, it says "In 1953 he was elected President of Birkbeck College, University of London and on 18 March presented the 1952 Haldane Memorial Lecture". He presented the 1952 lecture in 1953? Or is this a typo?

   • No, it is a common occurence; I encountered it with my Royal Society lectures as well. They will announce that the "1952 Haldane Lecture" will be presented by Denning, who will present the lecture (awarded and announced in 1952) in early 1953 while the lecture delivered in 1952 is done by the 1951 winner. It is a bit confusing, and my apologies for that; I doublechecked the sources and they all seem to agree that it was the 1952 lecture delivered in 1953. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I've added fact tags in a couple of places where I would like to see references. A couple of them are accompanied by hidden comments.

   • I think I found them all and corrected them according to the comments. Ironholds (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • For Ref #63 (the Sue Hodge book), is there a reason it is not in split format like the other books? Also, please add an ISBN.

   • ISBN added; by "split format" do you mean a book in the "References" section and then "Hodge (2004) p.2" or something for the inline? Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Yes, that is what I mean by split format. Basically, changing this would make all of the book refs consistent, which is something that MOS likes. Dana boomer (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • What MoS wants, MoS gets! Done :). Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • It would be great if a photo was included in this article. I notice that there has been some discussion of this on the talk page - has anything happened with the scanning or photo taking? I agree that fair-use is probably the only way to go, since there doesn't seem to be much out there that is free use.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Here's the beginning of the review, with a couple of comments on references and images. I'm currently being called away from the computer, so I will finish my review a bit later today. Please let me know if you have any comments of questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

   • I have finished my review, and placed all comments I have on the article above. I am placing the article on hold to allow time for these issues to be resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Okie-dokes, thanks for the help (seriously, thanks: reviewing and article tagging is never something I could get the hang of, and I'm a bit in awe of anyone who can). I'll sort them out this afternoon, most of them seem 2 minute jobs. Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Thanks for the quick reply. I've struck out the finished comments above and added my reply in one place. I think the only issues we're waiting on for me are the split reference and a reply on the images.

Hi there. I've gone over the article. My apologies for the delay in giving feedback, aka my 2cp.

The article has a lot of information (good information!), and User:Ironholds has substantially expanded it, which is great to see. But, there are problems. It has prose issues, grammar problems and overwording making it unclear; lots of jargon; parts, are unfocused, going into unnecessary detail. I can provide a few examples if needed. Also style problems, plus referencing or citing issues—Dana boomer has brought up several occurrences. Its foundations, are generally sound. I felt significant work is needed though to address the issues. –Whitehorse1 15:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Whitehorse, it would be great if you could provide some examples. I've been through the article, and have either corrected or pointed out the grammar and prose issues I found. I also didn't find a lot of jargon or overwording, or unfocused areas. If you would like to point out these sections, or correct the grammar if it's something simple, that would be great. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Things I felt problematic tended to be little things or, just things I was unsure of. I'll try to play around with it later today; I've some tasks on here and off I must look at; be happy to sure. Like I say, the foundations are sound. The 1952 lecture in 1953, that you brought up above, is a perfect example of something I'd bring up as unsure of. Likewise, one person's unfocused or unnecessary detail is another person's compelling little detail. I'll add some points below—will hopefully do some edits later on some I'm more confident about. –Whitehorse1 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• General prose-y stuff.

• I don't know if it's necessary when citing full case names which include a year, to follow with "in 19xx". Well, looks strange to my eyes anyway.
• "noted for his bold judgements" (you only spell it with an 'e' once)
• Occasional inconsistent use of British English. E.g. American English: "World War 1" instead of the "First World War"

• "due to his personalisation of the legal profession" I think 'personalisation' while relatively common in American English, is not a term used in British English or those dictionaries.

• I'm afraid the department of health would disagree with you there. It is (relatively) commonly used in the area of the UK I live in (I say "relatively" because in any area it isn't really a word you use regularly). Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The most-recent OED disagrees with me. Naturally, I searched online dictionaries before mentioning the word I thought uncommon in Brit. English, and found only N. American dictionary references. Having since looked further, I learnt something new. I stand corrected. Whitehorse1 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• spelling, run-on sentences and passive voice.

• "asked if his conduct had lead ordinary people" Should be led.
• "he attempted to reform the principles applied by the Minister and Pensions Tribunals" 'Minister of', or 'Minister and' maybe?

• The Minister, and the Pensions Tribunals; changed now. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• "On 27 February 1953 he" (run-on sentence)

• And the correct course of action for a run-on sentence is..? Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry. It's recast the sentence, add punctuation, or break it up into smaller sentences. Actually, I edited it a bit; it looks different now. Whitehorse1 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• "and led to the passing of" (passive voice)

• And this is corrected by what. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Re-writing to use active voice. It's explained by the above-wikilinked occurrence of 'passive voice'. Sort of. Whitehorse1 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Denning's final report was 70,000 words long and was completed in the summer of 1963." (passive voice?)

• See above. I'm not the worlds greatest writer of English prose, and neither am I the greatest of treasure hunters. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Neither am I. One thing is for sure: You tackled a whole lot've things extremely quickly, and you did a fine job of expansion. I'm not the world's greatest mathematician. Whitehorse1 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• wordiness / redundancies

• "systolic murmur of the heart" (instead of systolic heart murmur)
• "with the 1930s involving an increasing amount of work with the High Court of Justice"
• "a legal precedent he himself had set up in"
• successfully appealed against the decision
• "two other barristers were sworn in to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division along with Denning, and of the three only one of them had".
• "As well as his work as a barrister and judge Denning was also"

• Could you perhaps give suggested remedies for these? Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed: Chopped the 'also / he/was also' bits. The rest you'd already taken care of. Whitehorse1 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Seemed to be jargon terms and phrases without explanations or wikilinking.

• In the lead you use phrases like "several of [his decisions] were 'confirmed by Parliament'" without explanation.
• "where he successfully argued on an exemption clause" Technical phrasing; also term not wikilinked or explained.
• "His first few years were spent receiving small briefs from a variety of clients"
• "when the news of Denning's election was brought" If election is some reference to the scholarship, this is not clear in the text.
• "and was one of only fifteen successful applications at that time" Without knowing their quota etc., the data doesn't mean much.

• Parts seem unfocused, digressing into unnecessary or excessive detail (?)

• "impressed the examiner ... correctly answering questions on the Law of Property Act which had only been given the Royal Assent a few days before"

Is this anything special? It would have been a 'Bill' for some time before becoming an 'Act'; it is hard to believe he would not have been taught about it at his college; especially since it was probable it would become law before his examinations. Incidentally, Royal Assent shouldn't be preceded by the definite article ('the').

I highly doubt students would be taught the contents of bills; I'm studying a law module at the moment, and I'm not. The output of Parliament is relatively small, but if we were to study bills we'd be unable to look at anything else. The royal assent is traditionally given fairly soon after the passing of the bill by the House of Lords, so there is no reason to believe that the passing of the bill by the two chambers of parliament would have given university lecturers time to teach the new law. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought those bringing wide, significant changes might be different. Striking out item. Whitehorse1 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The two-hour cotton on weight fiddling story has little anecdotal value. Maybe it's just me.
• "continued working as a judge while chairing the committee, which met daily between 4.30 pm and 7.00 pm" I felt this was trivial minutiae.
• "In January 1964 he and his wife Joan travelled to" You list a great many stops he and his wife made on the tour.

• Unfocused half-stories which either leave readers (well, me at least!) confused, or wondering 'huh? then what happened?'.

• "he also wrote a manual for the railway police" On what? It's good if you explain things such as this, especially the first point.

• And if the various biographies I have red mentioned it, I would have. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Style-oriented issues.

• "as supporters and was" This one's overlinked, i.e. it's a standard English word.

• "Supporters" is, yes, the meaning of supporters in this case (figures "holding up" the shield in a Coat of Arms) which the word links to is not. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• My mistake. Whitehorse1 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• "is still valid today" and "like the 'High Trees Case' it is still valid." The case isn't all that old. I would've thought plenty of case law remains valid for a long time.
• Often you use no case citations: "decisions were overturned only once, in Churchman v. Churchman" Ditto several others.

• Some awkward phrasing results in you saying something quite different to what you—presumably—intended.

• His work steadily increased in amount and value" Here you say his work was of little worth.
• "controversial for his refusal to follow the common law principle of precedent" Here you accuse him of judicial misconduct. *g*

 –Whitehorse1 21:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• All points not addressed have been fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Whitehorse1 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article looks great, and since, from my reading, all of the above issues have been resolved, I am passing this article to GA status. Whitehorse, thank you for your input and thoughts - they were a benefit to the article! Ironholds, you did great work on this article, and thank you very much for the prompt response; you were very patient at having to put up with not one but two nitpicky reviewers :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)