Talk:Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mhawk10 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look over the next couple of days or so. And make notes in the table below as they come up. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues with prose, spelling, or grammar as far as I can tell.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I don't see any MoS issues with respect to lead, layout, WTW, fiction, and/or list incorporation. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All references are given in a manner compatible with the layout style guideline. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All citations present in this article are from RS and the article appears to pass WP:MINREF. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues as far as I can tell.— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	WP:EARWIG flags an attributed quote and content taken from a U.S. Court judgement as possible copyvios, but the former falls within fair use and the latter is a document in the public domain. As such, this does not appear to have copyright issues. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses many of the main aspects of the court case, but it doesn't really describe any of the arguments presented by the parties involved. The defense presented by Epyx at the trial court is not presented in the article and the arguments over the alleged trademark infringement are given almost no coverage. Surely there's something that can be written about this aspect of the trialthat's more than it getting passing mentions in a couple of sentences—the reasons Date East cited when alleging Epyx violated DE's trademark and Epyx's substantial defense against this allegation do not yet appear anywhere in the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC) The comments below address this concern. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I do not see any issues with neutrality within the article, aside from missing main aspects of the court case identified in 3a. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC) My concerns have been addressed. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged with copyright statuses. No images in this article require fair use claims. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are two images in the article: the seal of the 9th circuit and the face of the judge who wrote the opinion for the 9th circuit.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placed on hold. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Passed. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I tried my hardest and fleshed out some of the arguments in the case. I don't know how familiar you are with Wikipedia articles about lawsuits but an appeal decision is usually written and delivered weeks after the arguments are heard. Finding a transcript of the actual arguments is near impossible and we are usually left with whatever the judge decided to include in their decision.
• Moreover, the issues in a legal dispute are seldom equal, especially when you're focusing in on an appeal court ruling. I reviewed every single reliable secondary source I could find, and not a single one even mentions the Trademark issue. (This is typical, because a lot of legal disputes involve a "kitchen sink" or "machine gun" approach where you bring up every issue possible, knowing that the main issue is something else.) The article does cover the main copyright issues -- the main reason the case is notable, as defined by the sources. If you double check you'll find that my description of the secondary sources is accurate.
• The best I could do was to give a more detailed summary of the appeal court's analysis. The ruling isn't too long and it would be easy to double check if I missed anything of note.[1] Jorahm (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. Congratulations on the GA! — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)