Talk:Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 10:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• The capitalisation doesn't seem consistent, either internally or with the article title. The article begins "The Royal Prerogative is a body of customary authority ...", but every other time the term appears it's "royal prerogative".

"Royal Prerogative" capitalised; all other variations ("prerogative", mainly) converted to/left in lower case. So  Done - AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• "... where existing precedent does not adequately apply ...". Why "existing" precedent?

Precedent would not exist for the situation the Monarch is faced with at the point she deviates from standard practice. Makes sense to me. AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• "There are two sentences quite close that begin "Today ...", which is slightly jarring.

Never noticed that;  fixed - AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• "When outlining the Queen's involvement in these and another areas, the monarchy has a significant constitutional presence but only limited power ...". This doesn't make much sense to me. Who's doing the "outlining"? The way it's written makes it look like it's the monarch, which seems very odd.

That looks like somebody messed up when merging two sentences.  fixed

• "... because the prerogative is nowadays in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials." Which prerogative are we talking about here? One other than the royal prerogative, which we've been told is in the hands of the monarch?

We're only talking about the (royal) prerogative; that's the only one that exists, though it in some cases is exercised by HM Government and not the Monarch herself. The sentence means what it says: powers linked with the royal prerogative are today exercised the PM and the Executive, and not by HM. AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition

• "The two views are separate." Clearly they are, as they come from two different people, so I'm not sure what's being implied here. Is it that they are somehow in conflict, or incompatible with each other?

What is being implied is that the two views constitute two different schools of thought on the prerogative, with the obvious point being that constitutional thinkers will usually prefer one definition to the other. Ironholds wrote that, so I'll defer to him on whether that sentence needs filled out a little. AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

History

• "The first dent in this stability came about in 1607, with the Case of Prohibitions." As this is the name of a legal case, shouldn't it be in italics? Same with "Similarly, in the Case of Proclamations in 1611 ...".

Yup. I usually fix italicisation for case names by setting my browser to find "v" or "v.", as that usually flags up all case names; but obviously the nontypical naming of the Case of Proclamations and Case of Prohibitions meant we missed this one.  Done - AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Use

• "Today, some prerogative powers are directly exercised by ministers without the approval of Parliament, including, in the United Kingdom, the powers of declaring war and of making peace ...". As this article confines itself to the royal prerogative in the UK, it seems redundant to say "in the United Kingdom".

True that; I've killed "in the United Kingdom".  Done - AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Some key dimensions of the British system of government are still governed by means of the royal prerogative ...". Seems to strange to have a government being governed. Not sure what "dimensions" means here either. Functions?

Seems strange to me too. "dimensions" changed to "functions" and "governed" changed to "executed"; also "means" to "virtue" as that fits better with executed.  Done - AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Limitations

• "There have been several influential decisions of the House of Lords on the use of prerogatives, which have seriously limited them. In 1915, they decided ...". That final "they" is referring back to the preceding "them", which is the prerogatives.

"they" → "the Lords".  Done - AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• "This was backed up by The Zamora ...". What's "The Zamora"?

The Case of The Zamora [32 TLR 436]. Lack of coverage outside of this article is not our concern, but privately I'll indicate that my intention is to create articles for some of the redlinks in this article—of which there are several. AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Another extension came with R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union,[41] where the Court of Appeal held that ...". It seems strange to say "where" rather than "in which", but if that's the usual legal terminology then so be it.

Judicial review

• "And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call has advisers to a just and severe account.". Does the source really say "has advisers"?

Typo for "his advisers", I'm guessing.  Fixed, absent indication from Ironholds (who wrote that sentence) to the contrary. AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

References

• Sometimes there's a space before the page number, as in "p. 554", and sometimes there isn't, as in "p.87". Whichever is your preferred style, it ought to be consistent.

It is consistent: I prefer a space; Ironholds, evidently, does not :). I've harmonised them all, so this is  Done. AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

• I don't see Leyland (2007) in there.

 Added, well caught. AGK 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK, that'll do for me. This article is now officially a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.