Talk:Inchoate offences in English law/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Hi Ironholds. I'll be conducting this review.[reply]

My first impression is that the article over-reliant on Mr Herring. He may be one of my lecturers, but I would not consider his viewpoint definitive. Now, of course a range of sources is an FAC criterion, not a GA one - but it would be hard working from a single source not to import bias in scope or viewpoint (even for you). There are 24 citations to Herring but only 5 to any other academic. Could you possibly balance this a little more? If you have Ormerod (ed.) or Clarkson, Keating & Cunningham, they would suffice. In the meantime I'll examine some other features of the GACR. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a lead note, I think that the jurisdiction - England and Wales - should be mentioned, and the helpful link given in the next section to English criminal law either duplicated or moved into the lead somewhere. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handing over the review to a 2nd opinion following edits which where not "transient or trifling" and therefore commit me a little too much to the article. However, I had few doubts and little more to add. I've seen to my own recommendations. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Dana Boomer

Hi guys - if it is acceptable to you (Grandiose and Ironholds) I'll take over the review. I'll start looking over the article now and should have comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Encouraging or assisting section is confusing me a bit. This subject is mentioned nowhere else in the article (I'm thinking particularly of the lead and definition sections which both mention the other three types of inchoate offenses), and the section's one sentence seems to provide little context or information for the reader.
Incitement - The first sentences says that the common law offense of incitement was abolished in 2008, but then in the second paragraph is "incitement is a common law offence.". This seems to be contradictory, or maybe I'm missing something?
Conspiracy, ""conspiracy to outrage public decency", appears now to have become a statutory offence." Why appears to have become? Do we not know for sure?

I've now finished a first reading of the article, and overall find it to be fairly accessible. Sources, neutrality, stability, etc. look good. There were a few things that confused me, so I've left some possibly stupid layperson comments above. Once the above are addressed, I'll take another look through the article, but I think that at this point it's quite close to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'll check the sources, but as I understand it I'm afraid the answers to #2 and #3 aren't what they could be, namely "Yes, it is contradictory" and "No, we do not know for sure" but it should be perfectly possible to quote a reference says. #1 probably needs more. 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I had my facts slightly wrong on #3, although there is indeed one conspiracy whose picture is unclear (just not that one!). The others I've substantially changed. Ironholds may have some thoughts. I've clearly been drawn in to the article too much as a law student myself, so although I don't mind who is notionally conducting the review (since authority would usually stay with the first reviewer), it must de facto be you. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with passing the article when we both come to an agreement that it looks like a GA :) A couple of things that came up while reading your changes:

I'd like to see a source for the last bit of the first paragraph of the Encouraging or assisting section, starting at "In contrast to statutory crimes...", mainly for the last two sentences.
Do we have any explanation of why the courts came to different conclusions in the case of Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare versus the case of R v James? From reading the brief descriptions given here it seems that they were extremely similar.
Is there something wrong with "offences if there the defendant commits and act capable of" in Encouraging or assisting? I can't make heads or tails of it.
Incitement section, "if the defendant knew that if his advice was followed, he should be found guilty." It feels like there should be something in between the first and second clauses (maybe ...if his advice was followed a crime would be committed, he should..."). I could just be reading this wrong, though.

I am also interested to see what Ironholds has to say on the subject, since some parts of the article have changed fairly substantially since they originally posted it to mainspace. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altered all the points. I've also pinged Ironholds, we'll see if he replies. I certainly agree the article has changed considerably. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Okay, my opinion is that, basically, Grandiose is a better authority on this issue than me :). Technically I'm more qualified in law than him - completed my law degree, etc - but that doesn't mean I know more; it means I know less. As a law graduate, I just have my old, slightly outdated textbooks on this area (IP law and con law are more my thing). As a law student, he's actively studying this area, and doing so in an up-to-date fashion; his books and knowledge is new. Mine are old :). So, basically, if he says something is the case and there is an appropriate reference, he's far more likely to be right than I am, and his source is far more likely to be correct than mine. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have read over the article again and everything looks good to me as a layperson. Since, from your comments above, both of you appear to also be satisfied, I am now going to promote the article to GA status. Nice work, both of you! Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]