Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Coke/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Edward Coke edit

Edward Coke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it's great? I'm not sure what to write here, except that I'm very proud of the article and look forward to the review :). Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from George Ponderevo

  • "It was not a common surname, being limited to one family, but the family itself was relatively respected". I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here. If the surname had been common the family would have been respected automatically?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The origins of the name prior to that are uncertain". That a few people before before Coke had the same surname in no way explains the origins of the surname. And are the origins not still uncertain?
  • "... theories are that it signified a river among early Britons". The river was among early Britons?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Francis Bacon, his main competitor, was noted as a philosopher and man of learning, but Coke had no interest in such concepts." Was it really the concept he had no interest in, as opposed to the subjects?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the Third Amendment, on the other hand, takes influence from the Petition of Right." Strangely unidiomatic. Why not "is/was influenced by"?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Coke argued that the judges of the common law were those most suited to making law, followed by Parliament, and that the monarch was bound to follow any legal rules. This was because a judge, through his professional training, internalised what Alan Cromartie referred to as 'an infinity of wisdom' ...". What exactly is the "this" at the start of that second sentence referring to?
    That the judges were most suited to making law. As with the tears comment (see below) I'm struggling to understand the confusion, but I appreciate I'm probably more familiar with the text and the subject than most. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "This" could refer to Coke's argument about the judges, the comment about the position of the monarch, or why he put forward the argument in the first place. Beginning a sentence with "this" almost always leads to ambiguity. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Gotcha; fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke's theory meant that certainty of the law and intellectual beauty was the way to see if a law was just and correct ...". In what sense was Coke's position a theory?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... he was summoned before Elizabeth I, who berated him to the point of tears before confirming him as Solicitor General." Who was in tears? Elizabeth or Coke?
    I'm struggling to see the confusion, here; how many times in literature have you seen someone cry from shouting? :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We're discussing what you've written, not what I've ever seen. It's quite possible that Coke was one of Elizabeth's favourites, and it pained her so much to berate him that she was in tears. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the Harv links are broken: #3, #107, #189, #219, #228
    Fixed; my apologies. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite fixed. Three entries in the Bibliography aren't used as citations: Campbell (2002), Ibbetson (1984), and Simpson (2004). George Ponderevo (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "king" capitalised in sentences such as "Coke himself attended divine service with the new King on 22 May ...", but "monarch" isn't in "... the judges held their positions only at the pleasure of the monarch."? George Ponderevo (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because 'King' is a title, while 'monarch' is not. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    King is only a title if it precedes a name, such as in "King John", not otherwise. George Ponderevo (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from George Ponderevo

I still don't think this is quite there yet:

  • "The case was actually two actions, with the first judgement being given in Denny's favour after Coke's research found a flaw in the pleadings that invalidated Cromwell's case." I don't think that's saying what you intended it to. The phrase "that invalidated Cromwell's case" is modifying the immediately preceding pleadings, in other words the pleadings that invalidated Cromwell's case as opposed to some other pleadings. Probably what you meant to write was "The case was actually two actions, with the first judgement being given in Denny's favour after Coke's research found a flaw in the pleadings, which invalidated Cromwell's case."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke retired to his estates, where he revised and finished his Reports and the Institutes of the Lawes of England before dying on 3 September 1634." As opposed to revising and finishing them after dying?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... her sister Audrey was married to Thomas Gawdy, a lawyer and Justice of the Court of King's Bench with links to the Earl of Arundel, a connection that later served Edward well. Winifred's father later married Agnes, the sister of Nicholas Hare." Later than what?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After being called to the Bar on 20 April 1578 Coke immediately began practising as a barrister. His first case was in the Court of King's Bench in 1581". Handling his first case three years after being called to the bar doesn't seem like "immediately" to me.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morice was placed under house arrest, and seven Members of Parliament were later arrested". How much later? Is the word "later" even necessary?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In reaction, Coke decided to bring charges of treason against Devereux". In reaction to what?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the Cokes immediately began ingratiating themselves with the new monarch and his family. Elizabeth Hatton, Coke's wife, travelled to Scotland to meet Anne of Denmark". It seems odd to start talking about the Cokes before we've been told that Coke had married.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke's behaviour during the trial has been repeatedly criticised; on this weak evidence, he called Raleigh a 'notorious traitor' ...". what weak evidence? Evidence of Coke's behaviour, which is what it looks like?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The conspirators were all sentenced to death and died through various means." All eight were hanged, drawn and quartered, so what are these "various means"?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not entirely convinced. Would you trust me to make a few changes myself rather than my keep adding to this review? George Ponderevo (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Convinced of what? And, sure, although you picked a pretty odd time to ask ;p. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Convinced that this is a plausible FA. But I'll leave it to Wehwalt, sorry for bothering you. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me leave you with one last thought Ironholds. Do you seriously believe that "James VI of Scotland set out to claim the English throne as James I of England" makes any sense at all? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now fixed. I appreciate that communications standards can be...flexible, on-wiki, but can I ask you to (in future) point out flaws with the article clearly rather than with unnecessarily passive-aggressive edit summaries? I'm perfectly willing to fix the article up when people politely bring me concerns: it's worth noting that this article contains prose I wrote a good four years ago, and copyediting has never been my forte. Your attitude here has been completely unnecessary. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that it's your attitude here that needs to be corrected, not mine. I have simply pointed out examples of where I believe the prose falls short of what ought to be expected of an FA, and I have even offered to help with the copyediting, but given your aggressiveness I will not be offering again. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if I misunderstood, then. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A conditional apology is no apology at all. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm. I'm apologising for stating that your comments were unduly rude, conditional on your comments not actually being rude. I'm sorry if this is 'no apology at all', but it'd be somewhat nullifying to insist I apologise for stating your comments were unduly rude even if they were unduly rude :). Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

  • Family background and early life
    • Why is England linked (twice) from the infobox?
    • "members of the family from the 1400s" Are we talking about the decade or the century?
    • " it was simply an attempt" Dislike "simply"
    • "was pronounced "kuke" during the Elizabethan age itself, although it is now pronounced "cook"" - what is the difference?
      • If someone wants to help me IPA that, I'd be most grateful :). The practical difference is Kuke as in Puke versus Cook as in book. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's even worse now! "The name "Coke" itself was pronounced "kook" during the Elizabethan age itself, although it is now pronounced "cook". Makes no sense to me and what are those itselfs doing? --John (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but this is most likely simply because the names" Simply again!
    • "One estimate by Allen Boyer is that Edward was the fourth child based on baptism registers." Sentence needs recast to avoid ambiguity

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for doubled periods caused by templates
    If you can see them, would you mind pointing them out to me? Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Block and Pound. You'll only be able to see them in read mode, as one period's hand-entered and the other automatic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed! Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boyer 2004: italicization is backwards (applies to all chapters from this book)
    That's a flaw of the template rather than the article. If you can point to a better way to represent essays within a multiple-author work I am happy to use it :). Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Use the chapter parameter for the essay title and the title parameter for the work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha; great :D Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check consistency of wikilinking in Bibliography - for example, Cambridge UP is linked in Caldecote but not Allott or Baker
    Fixed (or should be). Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Campbell 2002, Simpson 2004, Ibbetson 1984
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Campbell 2005: I believe Elibron is a replica publisher, so check if there was a previous one
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corwin 1929: quotes within quotes
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher and page numbers for journals in Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup; trying to, but on occasion I can't identify the publisher. I'd rather display additional information than less :). Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, all, for your comments :). work is...more hectic than I had intended it to be this week, but I will try to get to this stuff in the next couple of days. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarnold17

Sarnold17 comments collapsed here

Hello; I find this to be an excellent and interesting article on a very important Elizabethan-era Englishman. I look forward to giving this my support. I'm working my way through, and will likely have a boatload of comments, primarily dealing with prose. Some of the comments likely spring from my incomplete understanding of English as used by the English, so please help me learn.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • My impression is that almost all readers will see his name and pronounce it like the common soft drink. Also, my feeling is that most readers don't know how to interpret phonetic symbology, even though it looks fancy and scholarly. For these reasons, it would be good to let the reader know right off the bat how to pronounce this guy's name, and therefore I would write "(/ˈkʊk/ ("cook"), formerly /ˈkuːk/" The old pronunciation is a bit more problematical; see later discussion.
    awesome! Thanks so much for IPA-ing it :). Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was used to justify the voiding of the Stamp Act 1765 and writs of assistance, which led to the American War of Independence," This is unclear. Do you mean voiding both the Stamp Act and also writs of assistance? Or do you mean justifying writs of assistance, but also justifying the voiding of the Stamp Act? In other words, I don't understand his influence on writs of assistance. Would it be easier (or correct) to instead use the Navigation Acts in place of writs of assistance?
    Voiding the both of them; fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family background and early life

  • "of South Greenhoe, now Swaffham in around 1150" Recommend "now the Norfolk town of Swaffham", since we don't know from what part of England the family originated.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend "Norwich" be wikilinked, since it is introduced for the first time.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in paragraph two "The name "Coke" itself was pronounced "kuke" during the..." should be moved to the previous paragraph, since this is where you are discussing the family name, and that is a more suitable place to discuss the pronunciation. As for the pronunciation, "kuke" to me would be pronounced as in the word "cuckoo". This may be an Americanism, but the word "cuke", which is short for cucumber, would be more suitable. Is this not used by the English? If this doesn't work, then you could say it begins like the word "queue".
    Over here I'd pronounce it 'kook', I guess, which is closer to the original; will tweak. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would totally eliminate the discussion on the order of the children because (1) it is not important and (2) it is basically speculation. The reader doesn't need to know that the order of the children is not known.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Winifred remarried to Robert Bozoun" Recommend "his widow married Robert Bozoun" since the reader may not remember who Winifred is, and also because he had a daughter named Winifred.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education and call to the Bar

  • "by the age of 18 the students have learnt" Is "learnt" proper English? My American spell checker balks at the word. Is the word "endight" the correct word, and not "enlight"? If it is a valid word, could it be linked to wictionary? I haven't seen the word before.
    Learnt is acceptable over here, at least (I am informed it is the "past participle, past tense of learn (Verb)"). On endight, I've done a bit of etymological searching (after verifying that it's not a typo on my part). What I suspect is that it's a form of 'endite', which is an ancient form of wd:indite; I've linked that in the text :). Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "matriculated to" a proper construction? I like to think of matriculate as being akin to enroll, and I've always said "matriculated at". Thoughts?
    Pokes at goggle suggest it can be used (or is commonly used) either way; I tend to go for 'matriculated to', in the same sense as someone is 'returned to' Parliament. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Little is known of his time at Trinity – he certainly studied rhetoric and dialectics under a program instituted in 1559, but although he is considered to have had all the intelligence to be a good student little is known of his academic achievements there." This is a very long sentence and I find "but although" to be an awkward construction. Recommend: "Little is known of his time at Trinity, though he certainly studied rhetoric and dialectics under a program instituted in 1559. His biographers felt he had all the intelligence to be a good student, though a record of his academic achievements has not been found."
    Excellent suggestion! Fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was here he first drew notice, arguing well in an Inner Temple moot and asserting that the Inner Temple cook had failed to prepare edible food." He first drew notice? Does this mean he was noticed? If so, then by whom, and with what outcome?
    Hmn; there's a rather nice quote in Boyer about him, but it's unattributed; I'm loathe to provide a quotation that is uncited, or cited to the quoter rather than author. Sentence removed. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polson suggests..." We haven't been introduced to Polson, so you might mention that he was a historian/biographer/critic or whatever, and include his first name for this first encounter.
    Fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practice as a barrister

  • "and his reputation was such that when he retired to his house after an outbreak of the plague, "nine Benchers, forty barristers, and others of the Inn accompanied him a considerable distance on his journey". I can sense that these folks wanted to spend time learning from him, but I don't quite understand why they accompanied him en route to his house. Did they come to stay with him, or just travel with him? Can this be clarified?
    Just travelled; is it clearer now? Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and during the 1580s Coke was employed by the Howards to see off lawyers employed by the crown who argued that the Howards' lands were forfeit due to the treason of the 4th Duke of Norfolk." "to see off lawyers" sounds a bit awkward. Recommend "to counter the lawyers employed..." Also, shouldn't it read "were forfeited"?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke's argument in the case formed the first definition of consideration." You've run several cases together here, so the question is--which case? Perhaps say "Coke's argument in this last case formed..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break and will return with more comments later.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my next round of comments (will try to finish on 29 Jan).Sarnold17 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

  • Opening paragraph: the word "secured" used twice in one sentence. Perhaps change one to "obtained". Also, I'm accustomed to "on their behalf" instead of "in their behalf" but don't know the customary way to say it in England. The construction "was returned for Aldeburgh" doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean "returned to Aldeburgh"?
    Fixed! And no, it's not customary, just a stupid typo by me :). Re 'returned', someone being elected to Parliament is returned for a Parliamentary constituency - I'm not sure the origins. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitor General and Speaker

  • "It is implied that this was a narrow victory..." Generally, avoid using passive voice. Who made the implication? Perhaps: "This was likely a narrow victory, due in part to Coke's defence..."
    Fixed! Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney General

  • "The charges were never brought, as on 8 February 1601 Devereux ordered his followers to meet at Essex House" doesn't make sense. What do Devereaux's actions have to do with the charges not being made? I think you need to say something like: "The charges were never brought because of an incident that soon transpired. Devereaux ordered his followers to meet at Essex House on 8 February 1601, but when emissaries led by Thomas Egerton and John Popham were sent to him the following day, they were taken hostage."
    Good suggestion; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "pikemen"? Should be linked or described.
    My bad; linked. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Pleas

  • "His conduct is noted as "from the first, excellent..." Noted by whom? If possible, avoid passive voice.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Court of High Commission

  • "...amongst both common lawyers and Members of Parliament..." Is "amongst" as suitable as "among"? The former sounds folksy and not encyclopedic to my American ear; is this good high English in England?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is P.B. Waite, and why is he an authority?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as Fuller's Case after the defending barrister" should read "named Fuller's Case after the..."
    Strictly speaking, Fuller's Case wouldn't be the actual name, however. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group were dismissed..." group is singular; should read "group was..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke challenged this, saying "the King in his own person cannot adjudge any case, either criminal – as treason, felony etc, or betwixt party and party; but this ought to be determined and adjudged in some court of justice, according to the Law and Custom of England"." This quote needs a citation. Also, it has an opening dash but no closing dash. Is this accurately quoted? It should have a dash following "etc"
    Fixed; Coke's failure rather than mine (see this, for example). Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bonham's Case

  • "19th and 20th century academics" should be "Nineteenth and twentieth century academics" since it begins a sentence.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King's Bench

  • "had him found guilty" should read "found him guilty"
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return to politics

  • "In June of 1614" should read "in June 1614"
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is a "Cantabrigian"? should be linked or described
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was reported, Sir Edward "aunswered him somewhat short, that Sir Thomas needed not to trouble himself so much about it, for that he belonged to neither universitie." " this is awkward, and difficult to decipher; perhaps summarise without a quote.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monopolies

  • "Coke was then imprisoned in the Tower of London from 27 December before being released nine months later" needs rewording, perhaps: "...in the Tower of London in December 16__, but released nine months later."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petition of Right

  • "being unable to speak due to their tears" this sounds unusual; what are you really trying to say? There should be a better way to say they were afraid.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following are the last of my comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

  • "spending his spare time making revisions to his written works" having spare time when you retire is almost an oxymoron. I would just say "spending time making revisions..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his desire to complete his writings and advanced age" to complete his advanced age? To avoid possible confusion or stumbling by the reader, I recommend: "his desire to complete his writings coupled with his advanced age..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke was still in good health, despite his advanced age, and took daily exercise." "advanced" is redundant. Recommend: "Despite his age, Coke remained in good health, and exercised daily."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As he was on his deathbed the Privy Council ordered that his house and chambers be searched, seizing 50 manuscripts, which were later restored – his will, however, was permanently lost" Recommend: "While he was on his deathbed the Privy Council had his house and chambers searched, seizing... which were later restored, though his will was permanently lost."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Latin inscription on the monument..." Recommend breaking into two sentences.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • first image in this section does not have alt text.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paston was noted by Woolrych as an "incomparable" woman..." Since much attention is given to the father named Paston, I would call her "Bridget" and not "Paston" in this sentence, to avoid confusion, because I immediately thought you were talking about the father, not the daughter.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Bridget Paston died in 1598..." Recommend "Following the death of his first wife in 1598, Coke married..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the marriage Coke was not buried next to Hatton, but instead next to Bridget Paston, who his daughter Anne declared was Coke's "first and best wife" " Recommend: "Coke was buried beside his first wife, who was called his "first and best wife" by his daughter Anne." You don't need to qualify this with "Despite the marriage..." because it is not unusual for a person who remarries to be buried beside their first spouse, particularly if that spouse is the parent of most of the children.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hatton and Coke had two children, both daughters..." Recommend: "Coke had two children with his second wife, both daughters,..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reports

  • "during his career, Coke would note down earlier cases he had heard of..." "note down" is awkward. Recommend either "jot down" or else "Coke took note of earlier cases..." Ditto in the next sentence.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although lent to friends and family, and therefore in slight public circulation, Coke never formally published his entire Reports during his lifetime" Coke wasn't loaned to friends and family. This should read "Although loaned to friends and family, and ..., Coke's Reports were never formally published during his lifetime."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 1634, officials acting on order of the King had seized Coke's papers, and between then and a 1641 motion in the House of Commons restoring those papers that could be found to Coke's eldest son,..." This doesn't make sense; break up into two sentences for coherence.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institutes

  • check the Jefferson quote, because the construction "learning on in the orthodox doctrine..." appears to have an error.
    Checked, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisprudence

  • Who is Cromartie? He should be introduced with his qualification.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was John Selden introduced? I don't recall.
    He was. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • While this isn't a show stopper, I was disappointed to find no mention about Coke's influence on Roger Williams in this substantial article. Since Williams was mentored by Coke, and then became one of the great religious figures in American history, this is really a pretty big deal. A recent book (2012) on Williams discusses the relationship between the two men, though I have not yet read the book. A commentary by the author concerning a review in the NY Times can be found here.
    I wasn't aware of the link; I'll add that commentary that I can. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

Quite good and engaging, but I have my usual list of quibbles:


  • Lede
Consider including in parentheses the alternate name of the ex officio oath, simply because the Star Chamber is well-known.
  • Family background
"The name "Coke" itself ..." Consider putting this sentence in a footnote.
"something that later served Edward well" Perhaps "a connection that later served Edward well" ? It's not quite certain whether the something is the connection to the Earl, or the marriage.
" and daughters second" I'd cut this as unneeded.
"Winifred remarried to Robert Bozoun" Which Winifred?
"A property trader, Bozoun ..." this sentence gets between the influence and the evidence thereof, and I suggest it be moved slightly. Perhaps, "Robert Bozoun, a property trader and a member of an old family. Noted for his piety and strong business acumen (he had once forced Nicholas Bacon to pay an exorbitant amount for a piece of property), Bozoun had a tremendous influence on the Coke children." You could even consider cutting the new parenthetical ...
"little is known" Three times in three sentences. I suggest you vary one phrase diversely.
"the Inns of Chancery, including Clifford's Inn, served as a place of initial legal education" On balance, I think a plural form is better ("a place") although granted, I can see a case for the other. Consider rephrasing to avoid.
"other pieces of high culture at the Inns" This sounds a bit odd to me, but perhaps it is just me.
  • Practice as a barrister
If he began is practice immediately in 1578, how was it his first case was not until 1581?
Making yourself available for work is not the same as getting it, particularly for new barristers. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing them to start the case anew.[38] Cromwell brought the case again, " a bit repetitive.
  • "paid off any royal clerks" Paid off? As in bribed?
  • "see off" seems a bit informal. Perhaps "oppose" or "defeat"?
  • Why the Third Duke but the 4th Duke? And a link to the treacherous one?
  • Fixed, but your first sentence confuses me. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " his third was Slade's Case," His third what? Famous case?
  • "Coke's argument in the case formed the first definition of consideration." Wouldn't it have been the judgment, which presumably incorporated his argument?
Politics
  • "Coke had earned the favour of the Dukes of Norfolk ... With their support, " Were there several Dukes of Norfolk at a time?
  • It's referring to the family rather than multiple dukes. Can you suggest a better way of phrasing it? Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and thanks to the influence of the Cecil family" As this is the first you've mentioned them, it's not clear why they should exert themselves on behalf of Coke.
  • It's also not mentioned in the sources :/. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although confirmed on 28 January 1593, he did not take up his post until the state opening of Parliament on 19 February 1593, a position he held at the same time as that of Solicitor General." Problem with this sentence.
  • "The idea of a peaceful, swift Parliament" given that the purpose was to impose taxes for war, "peaceful"'s a bit jarring. Quiet?
  • "due to religious problems." Perhaps, "due to religious conflict"?
  • "as Speaker of the House of Commons (whose job was to introduce any bills)" If his job was to introduce bills, how is it the bills which caused all the trouble were introduced?
  • "a day of respite". Perhaps "a day's delay"?
  • "opened up" somewhat informal phrases such as this are slightly jarring, perhaps because of the 16th century subject matter.
  • " A day later a group of emissaries led by Thomas Egerton and John Popham were sent to him and taken hostage." Huh?
  • The material concerning Devereaux perhaps can be cut a bit?
James I
  • The phrasing used implies there was doubt that James would be able to successfully claim the throne, but this isn't backed up in the article.
  • "the new royals." Surely James was royal from birth?
Judicial work
  • " known as Fuller's Case after the defending barrister, Nicholas Fuller." This can be read to say that the case was named after the barrister who had the defense in it.
  • "Coke's first case of note was Peacham's Case" I'd insert a "there" somewhere in this phrase.
  • " which saw the King's actions as him tampering with justice." I would omit "him"
Return to politics
  • James's action in ordering Coke's re-election seems so surprising (especially in light of subsequent events) that it almost begs for further explanation as to motivation.
  • Again with the link to Cecil! And title! I think he appears often enough that he need only be linked on first appearance
  • I would mention the term "letters patent" much higher in the paragraph. People may think of "patents" in a rather different sense.
  • In the sense of patent law? People would be right to think of letters patent in the sense of "patents". As that paragraph explains, the letters patent are the source of the patents system. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to me to be inconsistent in your capitalisation of "crown".
  • " Coke was briefly restrained from acting in Parliament by Charles;" I would cut this phrase, it is implied in the rest of the sentence.
  • "the person, for all others are accessory to it" I don't see how this fits the rest of the quoted matter.
  • "eventually rejected the Resolutions formally" I would boil this down to "rejected the Resolutions"
  • "Coke then undertook the central role" Strike "then" I would, especially since the last action was Charles' rejection
  • "The resulting debate led to some MPs being unable to speak due to their tears, fearing that the King was threatening them with the destruction of Parliament. " In modern parlance this sounds a bit hysterical. I suggest quoting from some contemporary description, if you have one.
  • "eventually affirmed". As the timespan referred to is between April and 17 May, suggest "eventually" can be dispensed with. I would give the year, it's a significant date.
Retirement
  • "effectively retired" Perhaps just "retired"?
Personal life
  • "through which" picky, but there's nothing that this refers to.
  • I gather Elizabeth predeceased Coke, but probably you should be clearer about this. (the infobox confirms this)
Writings
  • I'm not thrilled about the firstly and secondly; it looks odd and I wonder why one firstly and the other secondly? Is there a ranking?
  • Should Institutes and also Reports be italicised in the Gest quote?
  • "His Law Reports, known as Coke's Reports, were an archive of law reports" perhaps one "reports" can be massaged out. This sentence can profitably be divided.
  • "four of which are still lost" strike "still", I would.
  • " by copying out and repeating cases found in earlier law reports, " This sounds like verbatim copying, how is it original work?
  • The fragment of the sentence you miss is "started out by". It would be an impressive temporal achievement for Coke to report his own cases using reports written before he came to the bar. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although lent to friends and family," slight disconnect in this sentence, the initial phrase should refer to the subject, which in this case is Coke, not his reports.
  • "While the Reports were intended " this sentence could also advantageously be split.
  • "There are also factual inaccuracies;" I suggest you buy a Coke for this sentence and place it somewhere therein.
Jurisprudence
  • " Alan Cromartie referred to as "an infinity of wisdom"" I would think something from Coke would be better suited here, since it is an important point we should hear from him.
    • Primary sourcing and quotations makes me leery. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Selden" I would either remind the reader of who he is or else link again. It's been a while.
  • Bacon has played a major part in this article and need not be linked again.
  • "play with it". I do not find this a pleasing phrase, as it implies arbitrariness (or perhaps capriciousness).
Legacy
  • It might be worth mentioning that Casement was found guilty. A "1916" tossed somewhere in there might be helpful to the reader, who has been wandering among the Jacobeans.
Character
  • The description of Coke as something of a poor courtroom lawyer seems rather different than what I had pictured based on the biographical sections. Possibly he worked best from a script.
General
  • A script tells me that Campbell, Ibbetson, and Simpson, listed in the bibliography, are not used.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

  • In the Bibliography section it would be better if each journal article entry included the first and last pages of the article – in addition to a specific page number in the References section. Aa77zz (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, with the exception of one (Vermont Bar Journal) that seems to have vanished from the internet. Ironholds (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates' comments - The nominator has been slow to respond to the comments and reviews, and it would be a shame to see this nomination archived because of this. We are all overcome by real life issues at times, and this might be the case here. I would be grateful if the nominator could indicate when progress is expected. Graham Colm (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By my timing you posted this after I'd made fixes today ;p. I hope to finish the existing reviews tomorrow. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've indicated to the nominator that I am unlikely to have time to re-examine the article until at least late next week, as due to the delay, I'd have to start from scratch. No opinion on the present state of the article, which I have not examined.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Wehwalt can commit to reviewing shortly, I'd agree that this review still has some life in it, otherwise I think we'd have to say that after remaining open almost six weeks without consensus to promote, it'd need to be archived and another attempt made some other time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support This is a well-researched, well-structured, and well-written piece about a very important Englishman whose influence continues to be felt well beyond the British Isles.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It seems that the nominator has neither the time nor the inclination to address the work that still needs to be done for this article to meet the FA criteria, and in particular criterion 1a. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused; all the fixes you asked me to fix, I've made, promptly. When you've come in at 11 in the evening my time with a niggle, I've fixed it hours later. Where do I lack time or inclination? Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Promptly? You've been missing for most of this FAC, and have yet to address my fundamental concern, the quality of your prose. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; work has been hectic, and I have apologised for that. You'll note that I have made myself very available over the last week and a half, occupying almost all of my editing time with getting the article up to scratch. I am happy to address your 'fundamental concern' - the quality of my prose - when you bring up specific issues, as I have demonstrated by fixing the queries and quibbles you have raised. To be blunt, I'm finding this oppose very hard to take seriously coming from an editor who barely 24 hours ago described his state as "Convinced that this is a plausible FA" and, citing his own lack of time, asked Wehwalt to serve as his proxy vote - only to turn up now, after I objected to your tone, to not only vote directly but express some skepticism that the article is even fundamentally workable as a candidate. It smells a lot like sour grapes. As I've said, and as I've demonstrated, if you raise specific issues with the prose I am happy to correct them. Simply stating that the quality is insufficient is unhelpful for our readers, our editors, and our collaborative processes. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have consistently objected to the quality of prose in this article, for more than a month now, and you have consistently proven yourself unable to meet the challenge. I have even offered to help, only to be insulted by postings such as the one above. Where on Earth did you get that "sour grapes" idea from anyway? Are you suggesting that I'm incapable of getting an article through FAC? If you are, then you need to think again. This FAC ought now to be archived, and brought back when cooler heads than yours can prevail. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm suggesting that your rather vehement oppose came primarily because I objected to your tone. You have consistently raised individual issues with the prose, and I have consistently fixed them - in what way is that not meeting the challenge? Should I have instead focused on issues you had not brought up? And yes, you offered to help, and I was very grateful for that. I disagree that the FAC should be archived; I agree I'm probably not in the least-possibly-stressed mood right now, but I would suggest the same is true of you. Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You may of course suggest whatever you like, but I'm not the nominator here, you are. And you have failed to address my prose concerns and have spurned my offer of help. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I've addressed every individual concern you've raised, and again, your offer of help was most welcome. But we're clearly not getting anywhere here; I'm going to go write some code for a few hours. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I could give you a laundry list of problems with this article, and maybe you could go through that list and fix everything, and then I'd more than likely come up with another list, because your fixes weren't fixes at all. Articles brought to FAC ought to meet, or be close to meeting, the FA criteria, and this one isn't IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably could. Or you could simply point out where my fixes weren't fixes (or suggest fixes you are comfortable with). Again, I find your oppose unconvincing, being as it is a total reversal of your tone barely a day ago. But it's no skin off my nose if this is failed; I'm comfortable with the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - After six weeks there is no consensus to promote this candidate and I have decided to archive the nomination. Long reviews can deter new reviewers and a fresh start might benefit the article's prospects. Graham Colm (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edward_Coke/archive1&oldid=558615070"