Talk:Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp.

Feedback/Suggestions

The article looks great overall. The facts and court decision sections are thorough and have good content. A few fairly minor suggestions, because nothing major seems to be missing or unclear:

• The formatting towards the end of the Court Decision section might benefit from some reformatting to fit with Wikipedia style; for example, using 1) and 2) in the paragraph, and using a double-hyphen, seem to be discouraged on Wikipedia.
• The "External Links" section is empty, and the "See Also" section could probably do with some additions.
• Instead of including a section on U.S.C. Section 106 stating the statute in its entirety and then relating it to the case, perhaps it would be more concise and straightforward to link to the statute and only specifically mention the parts of it that are relevant to the case. That way more focus could be placed on how the statute applies to the case itself.

Other than that, I just went through and made a few minor changes in sentence structure or fixed small errors; some of them are listed below, feel free to revert any of them back to the original version:

• "The photos submitted by Playboy Enterprises were strikingly similar, if not virtually identical to the ones found..." --> struck "if not virtually identical"; or perhaps removing "strikingly similar" and keeping "virtually identical" would be a better representation of the facts
• Changed "all accused images" to "all infringing images"
• Rearranged Starware distributed and sold, in the United States, approximately 9,611 copies of a CD-ROM entitled 'Private Pictures I'" by moving "in the United States" to the end.
• Removed "that they argued were" from "shared the original photographs that they argued were in question."

Good work! I hope this helps. VM 12:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psykonautiks (talk • contribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 20:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be conducting a full review shortly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar need examining throughout. I understand the article is part of one of our ambassador drives. In this case, spelling and grammar checks should be obvious to a school or college student. Among obvious faults are "It's content" (which should be "its content"), the use of "1)" in the middle of prose, which should be avoided, and which is accompanied by an initial capital in the middle of a sentence. "Nor" at the beignning of a sentence is un-encyclopedic. On a technical notes there should be no space before references. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing - some secondary sources are needed. Writing about cases does involve relying on the judg[e]ment itself, but other sources should be included. Presumably you found out about the case somewhere - do you have a textbook, or casebook, or web materials? If they are reliable sources, include them. There are plenty of opportunities.

Referencing - each paragraph should have at least one reference. If it is the judgment itself, then duplicate the reference merely at the end of each one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Layout - do not include the statute section in the way it currently is. Give the section a more suitable heading, for example "Discussion of U.S.C. Section 106" then incorporate the statute as much as possible without merely listing it. Reference direct quotations to a source online of the code, if available. Reference this section - there are currently no references.

Linking - there should be more wikilinks. For example, I'd expect to find "Playboy Enterprises" linked, "Copyright infringement" "USC" linked on first use and not thereafter (this usually means the lead). Also link terms of legal jargon - "South Florida", "partial summary judgment", "Concise Statement of Undisputed Facts" (if possible); and anything else (eg. "CD-ROM"). Remove any links from "See also" if they are used in the main body. Delete empty "External links" or "See also" if these remain empty. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Placing article on hold for 7 days. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The seven days have now elapsed. I'm going to fail the article - but please renominate it once these issues have been dealt with - there is no minimum period for good faith nominations. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Yale University supported by WikiProject Law and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)