Wikipedia:Peer review/Alfred Denning, Baron Denning/archive1

Alfred Denning, Baron Denning

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to get it up to FA. A previous review was done before the GA, and those two both helped shiny everything up. Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley (talk · contribs)

Good stuff, and a good read! Generally there are a lot of semi colons in this piece. You might perhaps consider chopping some of the relevant sentences into two sentences. Otherwise, only a few pernickety points on grammar, usage etc.:

*Quotation marks: you have used the English version (single quotes) rather than the American (double) – but the latter is the Wikipedia standard.

• "A draper by profession" – "by profession" seems unnecessary.
• "but he accepted anyway" – a little informal for encyclopedic use? Perhaps "nevertheless" or some such?
• "…due to a systolic heart murmur" – traditional grammar would require this to be "owing to" – and "because of" is plainer than either.
• "…shortly after completing one, a German aeroplane dropped a bomb" – the plane didn't complete the bridge – suggest "shortly after one was completed…"
• "Applied Mathematics … Pure Mathematics … Geology" – are the capitals desirable?
• "only been given Royal Assent a few days before" - suggest "been given Royal Assent only a few days before"
• "From 1937 until 1944 he acted as Chancellor of the Diocese of Southwark, and from 1942 to 1944 was Chancellor of the Diocese of London." – was the former merely an acting appointment?
• "His work as a divorce judge was relatively sound;" – POV – needs substantiating.

  Substantiated in the next bit of the sentence, surely? Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

::Maybe - but look out at GA review! Tim riley (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Already been through it, and with a wonderfully thorough reviewer :). Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

*"led to Denning being invited in 1949" – grammatically, gerund needed here – "Denning's being invited…"

• "…claimant would have to prove their injuries were due to war service before they would be granted" – singular/plural confusion here – suggest pluralising the lot: "…claimants woud have to prove…"
• "The British Legion chose 73 cases and asked Denning to let the legion present them outside court time" – I can't quite work out what "outside court time" means here – can you spell it out for laymen like me?
• "After less than five years as a judge" – "fewer" would be grammatically corrrect.
• " had a personal license" – the noun is "licence" in ordinary English usage, though I am quite prepared to be told this is the correct legalese.

  No idea; I'll go with your spelling, my spellchecker allows both. The only confusing legalese word is "judgement", really (or judgment, rather :P). Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "judgment" (always go for the shorter word) but either is okay according to the OED and Chambers. What you lawyers prefer is not for us laymen to say. Tim riley (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that is the thing; when talking about legal decisions (court judgments) it must always be judgment, never judgement. Wonderfully fun at GA/PR/FAC, as I'm sure you can imagine. Trying to explain to a dozen users why you've used judgement in some places and judgment in others gets tiring. Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

*" altered on what grounds hospital staff" – suggest "altered the grounds on which…." – and semi colon after it needs to be a comma.

• " (where judges had a rota for taking cases) assigned cases…" "he assigned…" would help the eye here, perhaps.
• " He made the leading judgment…" – Denning not the the Lord Chancellor – suggest "Denning" not "He" to avoid ambiguity.
• "…and, appropriately, dissented…" POV – perhaps "characteristically" might just squeeze in.
• "… morals of ministers was not their concern" – "were not", I think.
• " as such, he sent a letter of resignation…" – an odd construction – perhaps "therefore he sent…"?
• " involved him speaking…" another gerund – either "involved his speaking" or "involved him in speaking".
• " with people queueing outside Her Majesty's Stationery Office to buy copies" [not a criticism, but you don't add that HMSO opened its bookshop doors at midnight to satisfy public demand for the report the moment it was out of embargo. I worked for HMSO and know this by personal info, so it is inadmissible – but may, if you think it of any interest, be verifiable from some proper source.]
• " The success of these lectures led to him being invited…" another gerund – "his being" would be grammatically correct.
• " Denning became possibly the most well known judge" – "most well" should be "best", I suggest.

I see you have not mentioned Denning's ruling against Ken Livingstone's "Fares Fare" policy in the 1980s, for which many Londoners will not forget or forgive him, but let that pass. An admirable article, and I'm sure it will go well. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)