Talk:Bribery Act 2010

	Bribery Act 2010 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 1, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Bribery Act 2010/GA1

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

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lead

• I gave it a quick copy edit; the only issue I have with it is that it might be a bit short

Background

• What is the Salmon Committee?

  Clarified, distinguished. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ...after its introduction by Jack Straw—when?

  Added. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ...would happen the competitiveness of British industry—happen?

  Hamper; silly tyop. Now fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act

• ...but "could potentially encompass items such as contracts, non-monetary gifts and offers of employment"—according to whom?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The "relevant function or activity" element is explained in Section 3—it covers "any function of a public nature; any activity connected with a business, trade or profession; any activity performed in the course of a person's employment; or any activity performed by or on behalf of a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporated", applying to both private and public industry, and encompassing activities performed outside the UK, even activities with no link to the country.—that is a very long sentence and needs to be broken up

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ..."therefore, a German business with retail outlets in the UK which pays a bribe in Spain could, in theory at least, face prosecution in the UK".—Again, according to whom? Is this the wording of the Act or a comment by a third party?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is the director of the appropriate prosecution agency? The DPP?

  No; whoever the head of the local police unit or relevant body is at the local level - it varies from place to place and can't easily be defined. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

• You name the publishers for all your offline sources, but not for those Guardian articles. I'll save you the trouble of looking it up and tell you that it's published by
  Guardian News and Media
  .

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, I think. I'll stick this on hold to give you a chance to address the above. If you'd ping me when you're done, I'll check back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. All looks good to me, so I'm happy to pass this. Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess of contradictions and tense issues regarding whether the act is in force and whether (and when) guidance was or will be issued. It needs going through and making consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Think I fixed it; let me know if you can see any remaining problems. Ironholds (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]