Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Second Review
I will offer a second opinion here since: 1)The original review was not properly conducted (left on GAN, review open, little serious attempt made). 2) The original reviewer called for a second opinion. 3) Nominator confirmed that the review was unhelpful.
It should take a day or two, but I'll post things here as I notice them.
1. Lead section too short. It does not summarise the article.
2. The list of recent notable prosecutions does not fully conform to MOS, embedded lists. Each case should be explained briefly in proper prose and a short introduction to the section made. Each should also be cited.
3. Necessity, or lack thereof, of state law violations
This section is clear enough, but, as in all sub-sections, it might be better to directly state the legal principle clearly first.
E.g. "The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit held in US Vs Brumley (1997) that, to be convicted of Honest Services Fraud, an official must have breached the state statutes which define the services he owes to his employer."
It should also be clarified what happens as a result of the two different interpretations. Is the law different in different circuits? Will this be at issue in Mr Weurauch's appeal to the Supreme Court appeal?
4. Intent to defraud and personal benefit
Again state the rule before giving the case history.
"The Court held that there must be some intent to defraud or seek personal gain for the offence to constitue HSF". The case illustrates the princple well though.
The first few and last line of that paragraph also need to be cited.
-- Ktlynch ( talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Second Review
I will offer a second opinion here since: 1)The original review was not properly conducted (left on GAN, review open, little serious attempt made). 2) The original reviewer called for a second opinion. 3) Nominator confirmed that the review was unhelpful.
It should take a day or two, but I'll post things here as I notice them.
1. Lead section too short. It does not summarise the article.
2. The list of recent notable prosecutions does not fully conform to MOS, embedded lists. Each case should be explained briefly in proper prose and a short introduction to the section made. Each should also be cited.
3. Necessity, or lack thereof, of state law violations
This section is clear enough, but, as in all sub-sections, it might be better to directly state the legal principle clearly first.
E.g. "The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit held in US Vs Brumley (1997) that, to be convicted of Honest Services Fraud, an official must have breached the state statutes which define the services he owes to his employer."
It should also be clarified what happens as a result of the two different interpretations. Is the law different in different circuits? Will this be at issue in Mr Weurauch's appeal to the Supreme Court appeal?
4. Intent to defraud and personal benefit
Again state the rule before giving the case history.
"The Court held that there must be some intent to defraud or seek personal gain for the offence to constitue HSF". The case illustrates the princple well though.
The first few and last line of that paragraph also need to be cited.
-- Ktlynch ( talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)