Talk:Act of Sederunt
Latest comment: 7 years ago by LiamMcS in topic Reversion of revision 30862431
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Act of Sederunt was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
Reversion of revision 30862431
I've reverted revision 30862431 for the following reasons.
- Wording edits are to commented-out text that is not part of the article text.
- Remaining edits are largely stylistic choice with no benefits either way, such as:
- en dashes instead of em dashes
- bolding the titles of Acts. For (sub)sections, this is generally only done where there is a redirect to that (sub)section or if it's in the lead. When used in a manner similar to italics (as here in some cases), this shouldn't be done for "legal or constitutional documents".
- The rephrasing to "replacing its de facto power" is uncited. The 1532 Act did not grant the Court any power to make Acts of Sederunt. Until the 1540 Act, it was Parliament that held the power. If there existed a de facto power in addition to Parliament's power, there should be a citation.