This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not leaving a formal meal until the coffee course (or even the loyal toast) is hardly confined to the Inns of Court...

David Underdown 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only rarely in a non-legal social situtation are you made to feel a fool for ignoring tradition Pydos 08:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with tradition - one should be regarded as a fool and a knave for bad manners. 79.72.17.57 (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but that lead pic is not good. There are several decent photos in Commons that could be added around the article. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I've tried not to add too many photos, because otherwise it pulls the structure out. Can you suggest any particular pic for the lede? The current one is a bit natty, but I couldn't really find anything that said "Gray's Inn" to me. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no photo views yet! maybe File:Gray's inn zz.JPG or the one left of it, or the first in commons. The notice too, maybe, & the chapel. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the first one, I'll stick that in. The chapel isn't really an accurate portrayal, I feel. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up some of the grammar and repititions as a minimum edit. 89.168.94.38 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Tony S[reply]

I've got to correct some of it - some of it is very confusing, and others are incorrect (civil law, for example). Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've also removed several key points. Rewriting. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, flows better now - there was an edit conflict and I might have accidentally removed some of yours in the process. 89.168.94.38 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Tony S[reply]

Can anyone supply an image of the Inn's coat of arms- Griffon Rampant?? 89.168.94.38 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Tony S[reply]

It's rather difficult to get hold of a direct image. There is a very nice painting of them in the RCJ I was going to use, but I can't find the room it was in. Ironholds (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gray's Inn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of several quick read-throughs, this article appears to be GA-class material. In particular, it appears to be comprehensive in scope and well referenced; but there is a bit of over-linking, e.g. Inns of Chancery appears to be excessively linked where ever it appears, but that is a minor problem that can be very easily remedied during the review.

I will now go through the article is some detail section by section, checking against WP:WIAGA, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

As this is a comprehensive article, it might take me a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one link, leaving three links to the Inns of Chancery. Over 40kb, that sounds about right. It's not a common term, so I tend to link such things a bit more often. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a "wiki-linked phrase" that caught my eye. It is suggested that no more than one wiki-link per section be used; it just caught my attention since it appeared to be linked in two consecutive paragraphs, in two consecutive sections (and linked singularly in several other sections). In reviewing I would probably delink the second occurence in each section (where relevant). Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Role -

Appears compliant, but are barrister's always "he"s? (shades of PC).

You want me to put in he/she everywhere? Barristers are mostly he's, and in the historical sense will always be he - the first female barrister wasn't admitted to one of the Inns of Court until 1921, largely because of the law degree awarding attitude of universities. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add this explantation to Role. Pyrotec (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That most barristers are male? Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a PC comment about "allowing him to practise as a barrister in England and Wales.[1]" In respect to your question above I indicated that you could add a note based on your expanation: "Barristers are mostly he's, and in the historical sense will always be he - the first female barrister wasn't admitted to one of the Inns of Court until 1921, largely because of the law degree awarding attitude of universities." To summarise, you say they were always male before 1921 and mostly male from then onwards.That appears to be encyclopedic, why not add it to the article? Pyrotec (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section disscusses practising as a barrister in England and Wales. There is no mention of whether he is able or not to practise in Scotland (or NI); but the WP:Lead does not have this caveate about England and Wales. Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a caveat in the lede - barristers must be called separately in NI/Scotland to practice there, since they have seperate legal systems and separate laws. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• History -

• The first paragraph; is "common lawyer" a technical term?

• Yup, a lawyer of the common law, rather than of say, canon law, who would be a member of Doctors' Commons. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reference for their migration to Holborn?

• Added. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Founding and early years -

• Reference for socii.

• Added. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Elizabethan golden age -

• I've no idea what Bolts are (well I assume they are not any of these Bolt).

• A form of legal exercise - there's no more specific information about it. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Caroline period and the English Civil War -

• What are Pension meetings?

• Meetings of the Pension - see the "structure and governance" section. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Well referenced

   B. Focused:

   Well referenced

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article. If you are willing to undertake the additional work, this article could be a WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]