Template:Did you know nominations/Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 22:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
No progress toward resolving outstanding issues in over 2 weeks

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.

(

)

... that virtual horses and bunnies are suing each other?

Created/expanded by Qianqian Zhao (talk). Nominated by Ruidai (talk) at 19:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs to use the article name, per formatting guidelines, so I suggest as an alternative:

ALT1: ... that in Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. virtual horses and bunnies are suing each other? Brianwc (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any DYK requirement that piped links are not allowed for the bolded article link; in fact, they are used frequently. The original hook strikes me as more interesting than the proposed alternate (which I have labeled ALT1 for clarity). I have also added a sig to the above comment.

Reviewer needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I'll, uh, bite. Having written and researched another article about a lawsuit high on the giggle factor, I can appreciate the appeal here.

However, I do think we need to make changes. First, the hook. As funny as it sounds, the virtual bunnies and horses are not the ones suing each other; their creators are. We should reword the hook to reflect this. Perhaps:

ALT2: ... that Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. is a copyright infringement lawsuit over virtual bunnies and horses?

Now, to the rest of the article. I realize this was a student project; this is all the more reason why it should be rewritten so it doesn't read like a brief but rather in the same straightforward narrative prose style that all our other articles about court cases are (or should be) written in. It is eminently possible to describe what the arguments are, and how they were found without resort to numbered lists and heds that reiterate pleading titles. In fact, doing so forces a writer to find a way to make things like: "Litigation privilege does not bar the tortious interference and unfair competition claims" (note use of wiklinking, too) more comprehensible to the lay reader (especially since it seems like a lot of the rulings are largely procedural so far).

The second paragraph of the "case" section has some particularly unencyclopedic, POV language ("Likely irreparable harm is interesting in this case ... though Ozimals stated that they would agree to Amaretto distributing their product for free, Amaretto understandably refused to do so) that needs to be taken out or attributed more directly to a source.

Lastly, is this sort of detailed legal blow-by-blow really necessary? See WP:SS. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite a notification on the nominator's talk page over two weeks ago, the article has not been changed, nor has any post been made here. Regretfully, there's nothing we can do but close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)