Wikipedia:Peer review/Competition law/archive1

Competition law
Please add all the comments, requests, additions, adjustments that you would like to recommend, especially if you are an expert or an interested person. :)  Wik idea  00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Extensive discussion at Talk:Competition_law. THF 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)r

It should be noted that this list is compiled mainly by one user and therefore is not a consensus. Further, as I mentioned on the talk page, there's a long list of complaints, however little initiative from what I can see to actually address them. Also in regards to the complaints; while some of the information may be common knowledge, a bulk of the arguments may not be and there's no sources provided to backup the claims. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) The list was reviewed by other users (all of whom were lawyers or law students) when I brought an RFC over the appropriateness of the NPOV tag (and when Wikidea brought a COI complaint against me), and all of whom agreed the tag was appropriate and my edits were appropriate. (2) There are sources to a number of matters than can be cited.  Since many of the complaints are about POV phrasing, NOR violations, and lack of relevance of many sections, there's nothing to cite.  If you think I've made a controversial claim, please identify it and I'll add a cite, but everything I mentioned is fairly obvious to American antitrust practitioners. (3) See WP:TAGGING.  An editor who identifies problems has no obligation to correct them.  In this case, correction would entail rewriting an entire article, something I'm not inclined to tackle before the WP:OWN and WP:NPA problems of an editor are fixed. THF 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Chicago school section requires substantial editing. Secondly I believe there was a Harvard school of thought? I'm relying on my memory at the moment. We are having a problem in terms of the structure of the article. I reckon we ought to reassess what it is this article is supposed to do. Many of the sections have their own dedicated articles. If it is to act as an introduction mini-portal, then we can restrain ourselves on the number of court cases that are required and broadly describe the theories behind competition law. At the moment I feel the purpose is confused - the competition in law practice cannot do itself justice because it concentrates on the EU side too much. At the same time we need to back up our comments, so finding a neutral source is necessary.


 * I would perhaps remove the competition law in practice section, if only because it lengthens the article and duplicates material that would be discussed in the main EU & US articles. If not, let's divide each part into three: overview, EU, US. That way each gets a dedicated treatment. Sephui 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind the object of Wikiproject law is to have a pan-jurisdictional treatment of the legal position. If there are people with any knowledge of US law that are willing to contribute, then that's the best thing, not deleting the practice part. Comments on specifics anyone?  Wik idea  11:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)