Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Commission on the Inns of Court

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Royal Commission on the Inns of Court

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1854–55 Royal Commission on the Inns of Court recommended that the inns combine into a single university of law? "The Commission of 1854 recommended that the Inns of Court should be united in one University for the purpose of legal education" Hansard
  • ALT1:... that the 1854–55 Royal Commission on the Inns of Court noted that the Inns of Chancery were ineffective at providing legal education? "The Commission reported a year later to the effect that the Inns of Chancery were no longer capable of making an effective contribution to the advancement of legal education" Charles Sparrow QC - Staple Inn Reading, Institute of Actuaries
  • ALT2:... that until well into the 20th-century the Royal Commission on the Inns of Court comprised the only public record of the private accounts of the Inns of Court? "The most recent information on the accounts of the Inns of Court is in the report of the Royal Commission on the Inns of Court in 1854" Zander writing in 1966

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Guo Kun

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 09:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC).

• All points check out for the article, which is new enough, long enough, neutrally written, well cited, and so on. Earwig finds nothing except names, and the QPQ is done. The main hook and ALT1 are cited and interesting. I am not so happy with ALT2, as the source does not quite seem to support it, but it would not have been the most interesting choice, anyway. Moonraker (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)