Talk:Federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 11:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
This article appears to be well referenced and quite comprehensive, although possibly the lead appears to be a bit short for an article of this length. At this basis, the nomination successfully passes the "quick fail" hurdle, so I'm reviewing the nomination in more depth, starting at History working down to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * History -
 * I have a comment/question. Ref 6 is written as 'Crimes Act of 1825, ch. 65, §§ 12, 16, 24, 4 Stat. 115, 118, 120, 122.' which (obviously) takes me to the wikipedia article Crimes Act of 1825 article - which is not a WP:Reliable Source in its self. Tucked away at the External sources section at the bottom of Crimes Act of 1825 is a link (which sometimes works) to the Library of Congress copy of the Act and also a link to WikiSource . If there is a Library of Congress copy or a WikiSource copy available, why not cite it?
 * The source cited is the Crimes Act, not the Wikipedia article. The situation is the same whenever a notable source is cited. A bluelink in a footnote is for the convenience of the reader only in learning more about the source cited. As for the wikisource link you have provided, that is to the 1790 Crimes Act, not 1825. I would consider a wikisource link in a footnote, if in fact this text were on wikisource, but prefer not to use an external link. There is no requirement that each footnote contain an external link to the pinpoint in the text cited. Savidan 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 is fairly similar cited as 'U.S. Const. Art II, § 4.' but the article (Article Two of the United States Constitution) has a link.
 * Same situation. The source cited is the text of the constitution. Savidan 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See the Scope section below.
 * Otherwise OK.


 * Doctrinal overview -
 * The whole of this section is a Table (or Manual of Style/Embedded lists):
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - It is provided without an discussion of what its purpose is, or what it is showing.
 * I have added more an explanatory paragraph before the table. As the section title indicates, its purpose is to give an overview of the similarities and differences between the distinct offenses, which are detailed in the sections about that offense. Savidan 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like it. Pyrotec (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - The top row is undefined, it consists of various "labels" of the type: some words, §+number(s) - having read the article the §+number(s) very much looks like a 18 U.S.C §+number(s) reference.
 * I have removed the §§ symbols. I hope that the addition of the explanatory paragraph now makes this clear. Savidan 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has three abbreviations, QPQ, RICO and ML, that are undefined and don't appear (as far as I can see) anywhere else in the article.
 * The added text should explain. In addition, I have linked QPQ, RICO, and ML. Savidan 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - It uses Latin/legal terms, such as "Mens rea" (which does appear in the Lead) but also "Nexus" (Nexus is a disabig page) and (Species of) Quos which appear nowhere else and are all undefined. I would have expected a wikilink to an article, to wikidictionary, or an explanation of their meanings. It also as Predicate (status), that term is wikilinked elsewhere once in the article, but its to a disambiguation page.
 * I have added a link in the explanatory paragraph to mens rea. There is currently no article for the legal concept of a "nexus"; as I have explained in the added paragraph, it is easier to prove than a full quid pro quo. Savidan 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - The Authorized sentence row has numbers, but are they days, weeks, months or years? (Years, I guess)!
 * Years. Now noted. Savidan 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Federal officials, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act & Mail and wire fraud -
 * This section is referenced, it mostly includes US Codes 18 USC etc and they are just named as 18 U.S.C. § xxx. Some or most of these codes are viewable on line, such as at Findlaw. It would be nice to have the links (I can't insist since the claims are verifiable, but I suggest that it could/would help improve the article).
 * I prefer not to provide external links in footnotes to the US Code. I would consider links to Wikisource, if such pages existed there. Savidan 01:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hobbs Act -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - "Under color of official right" appears to be a technical/legal term, it aught to be explained or wikilinked.
 * There is no article about this term, and there is not likely to ever be one (other than the Hobbs Act article. Given that the courts don't know quite what it means, I don't know that I can define it any better. The only real "definition" that can be provided is how the court's have interpreted the offense that it describes. Savidan 01:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As a predicate -
 * RICO, used as a subsection title is (obviously) an abbreviation, as the main link gives its official title. I believe that the official name Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act should be used.
 * RICO is a rather common abbreviation (used not only by lawyers but also the mainstream media and crime television shows), and the verbose title is already included in several places in the article. Changing the section title would serve only make the TOC very very wide. Savidan 01:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - The term "predicates" used elsewhere, but first wikilinked here goes to a disambiguation page predicates. However, none of the articles listed are predicate (legal) and I'm not sure that any are relevant. So what is/are predicate(s)?
 * There is currently no such article. The best I can do is Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Savidan 01:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Constitutional issues -
 * Looks OK.


 * Scope -
 * This article (ignoring the Lead at this point), has a History section, a Doctrinal overview section (of unexplained purpose) and then several sections dealing with specifics. The article then stops. I would have expected at the end as discussion or summary of the Impact (or synonym) of these status. This does exist in the article, in the History section, but the article would read better if "Impact" was expanded and placed at the end of the article.
 * I do not think I can provide such a section at all, and certainly not without original research. Perhaps you could clarify by what you think would be in the "Impact" section. I suppose its natural to wonder, for example, if the US has more or less public corruption than it would otherwise as a result of these prosecutions, but that's impossible to know. Savidan 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The '''History section has:

 The prosecution of state and local political corruption became a "major federal law enforcement priority" in the 1970s.[10] ..........

In 1977, Thomas H. Henderson, Jr., the Chief of the Public Integrity Section, wrote:

Until recently, the full panoply of potential federal resources had not been brought to bear effectively on corruption schemes at the state and local level. These schemes are at least as corrosive of the governmental process as corruption at the federal level. From the time of Tammany Hall this country has been painfully aware of the existence of corrupt practices in many of our metropolitan areas, and of the "machines" and "rings" which siphon off millions of dollars from public treasuries for private gain. Most state and local prosecutors, beset by inadequate resources and the overwhelming demands of a rising rate of street crime, are simply unable to deal with this type of corruption. Moreover, in some cases, local law enforcement is part and parcel of the problem itself, due to the outright corruption of its own establishment.

To fill this enforcement role, federal prosecutors during the last decade began to assume a much more active and creative role in attempting to use federal statutes to attack corruption at the state and local level.[17]

In 1976, there were 337 indictments of state and local officials for public corruption, compared to 63 in 1970.[18] Between 1970 and 1981, there were 520 federal indictments of state officials, and 1,757 indictments of local officials, for public corruption; over that period, 369 state officials, and 1,290 local officials, were convicted.[19] In 1986, there were 916 indictments of public officials for corruption, 320 of which concerned state and local officials.[20] In 1990, there were 968 such indictments, 353 of which were against state and local officials.[21]

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, was passed in 1977. The program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, was passed in 1984.[22] In the program bribery statute, "Congress, for the first time, directly federalized the crime of bribery of or by local officials."[23]

For example, between 1985 and 1991, over 75 public officials were convicted of corruption offenses in the Southern District of West Virginia alone.[24] By comparison, the only appellate court decision citing West Virginia's Bribery and Corrupt Practices Act, in 1991, was a federal court decision involving the state statute as a federal RICO predicate.[25] 
 * That to me is the Impact of taking the decision to make corruption offenses a priority back in the 1970s. Pyrotec (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * This should comply with WP:Lead and perhaps it does: it appears to introduce the topic and summarise the main points, but see below.
 * In your view, is anything missing from the lead other than the "Impacts"? Savidan 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead currently states that Federal prosecutions began in the 1970s, but there are some figures for the number of indictments in 1970, 1979 and the period 1970 to 1981 (see above comment). Pyrotec (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - I'm not an American so I was unfamiliar with terms such as "18 U.S.C. § 201", but now I've read this article in depth several times. 18 U.S.C. § 201 is US Code - Title 18: Crimes and criminal procedure, section 201 (which appears in Chapter 11: Bribery, graft, and conflicts of interest). I found this out from the website findlaw.com - the explanation is not too obvious in this article. The lead states "The federal official bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201 (enacted 1962), ....".
 * I have added an early and prominent link to Title 18 of the United States Code. Hopefully this will clear it up for most readers. If not, the statutes are never referred to only by their USC citation; only in conjunction with their common name. Savidan 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - I would have expected a simpler explanation somewhere in the article, i.e. most (all) of the acts were made under US Code 18, Title 18: Crimes and criminal procedure and the § reference is the section number.
 * I have added an explanation and link to Title 18. As for §, "§" is the "section symbol." That's not a meaning that is unique to lawyers. It is no more pertient to the subject of this article to define "§" as section than to define "#" as "number" or "&" as "and." In fact, § redirects to Section sign. It's just too much of a detour. Savidan 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead as currently written does not cover the Impacts of this acts (see above).
 * I'm not convinced that any such section can be added without original research. Savidan 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. The article should make GA, but it has a few "rough edges" that need to be addressed first. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will address these issues, but I will not be able to do so until after the 25th. Savidan 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Pyrotec (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving the article a thorough read and review. I have made edits to the article and/or have responded here. Please let me know if any of your comments have not been resolved to your satisfaction. Savidan 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Well referenced.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Well cited and referenced.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Not applicable - no illustrations.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Not applicable - no illustrations.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Not applicable - no illustrations.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Not applicable - no illustrations.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

The article has been considered improved in those areas where I raised comments and is somewhere easier for the layperson to follow. I'm therefore awarding it GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)