Talk:Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRobert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 20, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
March 29, 2020Good article nomineeListed
May 12, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
July 7, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Stub class==

Only bare biographical information included to date, and even then, several key facts just not included (birthdate, birthplace, spouse, children, etc.).

--Legis (talk - contributions) 12:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 12:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • A minor thing and certainly (as far as I know) not GA criteria, but I always look to keep leads clean of references as in principle everything noted in the lead should be in the main part of the article too and can be referenced there. This even applies to the direct quotations. Just makes for a better-looking intro?
  • I've removed the references and moved some of the material from the lead into the main section. The comments by Andrew Burrows and Stephen Tomlinson aren't in the main part of the article, so I've left the citations for those two, if that's okay. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm not sure of the MOS guidance on material, including quotes, being only in the lead, but it's not a GA criterion, so if you're happy to leave them then I won't argue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for thoroughness, I've had a look at the MOS. It says in MOS:LEADNO that not all information in the body needs to appear in the lead, and one of the exceptions is quotations. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father Lionel Goff " seeing as you introduced him in full in the previous sentence, no need to repeat Goff. And subsequent sentence...
  • Replaced the first instance with "Lionel", and the second instance with "he". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal Military Academy, Woolwich and" comma after Woolwich.
  • Kind of kicks off twice, "Robert Goff was born" starts two paras. A little odd for me.
  • "He was closer to his mother than his father. Unlike his" seek to merge to avoid short sentence and quick repeat of "his father".
  • "piano and taught him to play it." reads a little odd, no need for "it".
  • " He left Eton ..." quite a few run-ons in this sentence.
  • Removed part of the line that said that he was to take up his place after his military service. I imagine this is obvious given what follows. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd subdivision in the Early life and education: his start at Oxford after his military service precedes the military service subsection. A bit chronologically wonky.
  • Not quite sure what to do about this... he was assigned a place at Oxford before his military service began. Would it be better to say, at the beginning of the "University education" subsection, that he received this place upon leaving Eton? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited it so that the early education only mentions Goff having a place at Oxford. It then talks about his military service, following which he takes up the place at Oxford. Does this work? Alternatively, I could edit the section heading to read: "Early life, military service, and higher education". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason that "Guard Duty" is capitalised?
  • Only that it was capitalised in the reference, perhaps to indicate that it was not regular sentry duty but had a ceremonial element. I suppose this is clear from the fact that it was Windsor Castle. Changed to lower caps. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason for Tutors to be capitalised.
  • I had linked it incorrectly. It should be Tutor (education), which unlike a personal tutor is a College officer responsible for students' pastoral care and welfare, but not academic progress. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lord Goff as a soldier, circa 1944." image caption is a fragment so no need for a full stop.
  • "Combination Room .[11]" remove space before ref, and consider a link for JCR?
  • "the Bar after" why is Bar capitalised?
  • I'm not certain what the convention is, but every instance I've seen of the practicing Bar in the UK has the first letter capitalised (e.g. London Bar). It seems its the opposite in the US. Is it preferable to put it in lower caps? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say that it should be capitalised. The Cambridge English Dictionary capitalises it. [1] I've had a look around: the UK [2] and Australian [3] Bar Associations capitalise it, though the New York [4] and Ontario [5] Bar Associations don't. Since the subject was British, maybe we should leave it capitalised? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1954-55" (and others) use an en-dash for year ranges.
  • "This was initially a joint project with Maudsley, but their partnership later fell through" again, it feels like you're letting the cat out of the bag when you later go on to explain the breakdown in their partnership, I don't think you need to introduce it here?
  • A.W.B is overlinked. As is New and Lincoln college.
  • You use QC before stating Queen's Counsel, and it's overlinked.
  • I've removed the "Queen's Counsel". I don't think I can expand "Ashton Roskill QC" to "Ashton Roskill, Queen's Counsel (QC)" without making it look clunky and artificial. I think I'll leave it as "QC", with a link so a reader can see what that means. Somewhat like "OBE". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, "Ashton Roskill, Queen's Counsel" sounds fine. I've expanded it to that (without "QC" in parentheses), and I've added a link to the next instance of "QC". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "titled Judge, Jurist and Legislature, i" usually avoid inline external links.
  • "by Lord Neuberger[25] and Jack Beatson.[26]" just move that [25] to the end to avoid awkward placement.
  • Beatson is overlinked.
  • List of cases, some end with a full stop and some don't.
  • British Airways is overlinked.
  • Butterworth is also.
  • "rampant Or." fragment, no full stop needed.
  • "Fier Sans Tache [38]" remove space before ref and I imagine this, being Latin, should be italics.
  • Not sure either "See also" is needed here.
  • Check ref titles, spaced hyphens should be spaced en-dashes.
  • Check publishers, works etc, e.g. "Country Life UK" should be Country Life and it's unnecessary to include UK.
  • Not sure I saw any prose about the succession of Lord Browne-Wilkinson to the position of Senior Law Lord?
  • Added the line: "He retired in 1998, but continued to sit on cases occasionally until his 75th birthday. He was succeeded as Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and his vacant seat on the House of Lords bench was taken over by his former junior Lord Hobhouse."
  • Ref 38 could use a page number, isbn etc.
  • Year ranges need en-dash, e.g. 2017-2018.

That's all I have for a quick review. On hold while we go over them. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), thank you for such a thorough review, and for your patience with the many errors of style. I've done most of the edits, with a couple I'm not sure how to address. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kohlrabi Pickle I've responded in line above, not much to do really except perhaps double check the "bar/Bar" usage. Let me know when you're done and I'll do one final pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Thanks again! I've checked the bar/Bar question and responded inline too. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm happy with that and the article easily meets the GA criteria. Good work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chieveley House[edit]

[6] - very beautiful. And Grade II*, with an Arne Maynard garden. It should have its own article. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Good call! I'm happy to create it. I'm a little new to gardens though - is Arne Maynard well-known? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a basic, stub-level article here, and I'll probably progressively update it. Took some inspiration from some of the great work you've already done around listed buildings. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work - I was going to do it for you, but you beat me to it. I’ll touch it up a little. Maynard is quite a famous garden designer, but I’m not sure he’s English. KJP1 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it's nice of you to help. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Architectural Digest refers to him as British here: [7], so I'll edit the page to reflect that. I suppose that's healthier than assuming he's English from "Maynard". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A thought on Goff at FAC - I wonder if 1b - Comprehensiveness, will require a bit more than name-checks/bluelinks for his biggest cases? Spycatcher / Blake / Pinochet / Hillsborough. Appreciate you might think it a little "sensationalist", but they make the lead in his Guardian and Telegraph obits, and I'll bet The Times is the same, if I could get in to read it. I shall certainly drop by to review. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very fair point, thank you. I'm wondering how to integrate it. Do you think a new section with sub-headings for the big cases followed by details of them makes more sense instead of just a list? I was concerned that it might get too large and unwieldy. Thank you also for reviewing, I'm very grateful. This is my first FAC. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - maybe something like a Level 4 header under Judicial career, with a heading something like Major cases. Then a summary of those that made the national broadsheet headlines, as opposed to those where coverage was limited to the legal press. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The level 4 header approach would work - see my reverted version. But Major cases isn’t quite right, as you describe some major, “law” cases above. It’s something like, Cases of national importance / Cases which made the headlines / Cases with wider implications - none of which quite work either. I’ll have a think. KJP1 (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good call. The reversion was helpful - thanks. I'll think about it too - I think "landmark" or "leading" might work. There are cases where the issue is of national importance, or cases which have pushed the law forward, and I think both fall into that category. I'll work on summaries as well. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think “Leading cases” would work well. KJP1 (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: I'm about halfway through the summaries and should have them up in the next day or two. If you're still willing and able to review, would you mind weighing in on the FAC subpage here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley/archive1? Many thanks. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your very helpful comments at the FAC page. I very much appreciate the time and effort you spent on the article. I'm actually having exams now - silly of me to have put the article up for FAC now - but I also really don't want this FAC to fail. Could you have a look at User:Kohlrabi Pickle/sandbox/Lord Goff of Chieveley and let me know if this is along the lines of what you're thinking? In particular, are you thinking of the level of detail in the Airedale NHS Trust v Bland section, or does one/two-liners make more sense to you? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Robert Goff" and "Lionel Goff"[edit]

Hi Malerooster, in the instance of "Robert Goff" where you removed "Robert" (per MOS:SURNAME), the rationale for leaving "Robert" in there was clarity and ease of reading. Since I refer to the father and son a few times, I thought it useful to start the para by reminding the reader that the subject is Robert, and his father is Lionel. Of course, one might expect the reader to remember that the subject's first name is Robert, but as a judge, he's usually simply called "Lord Goff", and many readers might only remember that. I still think it would be good for the reader's convenience to trump consistency in this one instance. It would be helpful to know what you think, now that you know what the rationale was. If the opinion isn't too strongly held, then it would be good to revert it to how it was before. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS is just that and not something written in stone. I will defer to you on this and revert back. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Née is a word[edit]

I have checked that it is a word, but User:Flix11 says it is a grammar error, and wiktionary says it is english word not just french even tho it looks french. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the word is not allowed because it is not supposed to be used in encyclopedias, but User:Flix11 only said it was a grammar error. 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@174.77.115.26: It was clicked by mistake, chill up. Flix11 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What was clicked by mistake, if the edit was a mistake why did you put it back? 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Flix is saying that clicking the revert was a mistake. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Ok I understand now, thanks 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

I have just been through the footnotes for this article and noticed quite a number of inconsistencies in formatting, which I've corrected through this edit. There may be others and there are two footnotes which are definitely problematic:

  • Footnote 1: Burrows, Andrew. "Obituary: Lord Goff of Chieveley". Newsletter: Society of Legal Scholars. This is missing the year, volume number, page number and ISSN/OCLC. I also believe that the title is wrong; I think it should be The Recorder: Newsletter of the Society of Legal Scholars.
  • Footnote 4: Baron Goff of Chieveley, Robert Goff (2002). "Address to Law Students at the University of Oxford". Is this a lecture? If so, was it written down somewhere and published? I am not sure that this is an appropriate source for Wikipedia.

Finally, I also note that the coat of arms are cited to a book from 1846, which cannot support the statement that these arms belonged to Lord Goff who was born eighty years later... A recent volume of Burke's Peerage (like the edition from 2003) would tell you what his coat of arms were. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Noswall59, thank you for pointing these out. I'm going to dig through the material I used while writing, and try and fix these. I should be able to fix footnote 1 and the footnote for the coat of arms (as soon as I can get to a library). Re 4: I'm not quite sure. Goff's College and family had a copy. I'll need to check whether it was published anywhere. I'm leaving it in the interim because I don't think there's anything it supports that isn't also supported by footnote 3 (the Jack Beatson article); I recall that during the FA process, I was encouraged to put in a bit more diversity with the sources, which is why I used it rather than the Beatson article. The Beatson article also references the lecture.
All this might take a little time on my end though, because I'm snowed under at the moment... Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noswall59, I'm writing with some updates on these.
  • I have amended Footnote 1 to include the year, page number and OCLC.
  • I cannot find a publicly available version of Footnote 4, but it was indeed a lecture and is referenced extensively in the Jack Beatson obituary. I have removed every standalone instance of its use, so that any claim it supports it also supported by another secondary source. I think it is a useful complement to the other sources, and in these circumstances that it would be fine to leave it.
As regards the coat of arms, I sadly have no copies of Burke's or Debrett's myself, so (unless someone else gets there before me), this will have to wait until I am back in the UK and am able to get to a library. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Goff,_Baron_Goff_of_Chieveley&oldid=1207284180"