Talk:Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.

?

• Is the demo mode called "attract" mode?
• Which perspective are videogames today usually filed under?
• Are there two cases here? Artic was accused of infringing for sale of a "speed-up kit" that would modify the Galaxian game. Midway also challenged Artic for producing the circuit board for a video game called "Puckman". Which one did the judge rule over? Which was more serious?

Fred-J 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 08:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Commencing review. Initial comments will be provided within the next 3 days. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please excuse the delay. Have done an initial read and drafted some notes on my pc, will be with you shortly. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Review section

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.	Prose is clear and can be easily understood. Engaging and of a good standard. No typing errors detected.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is succinct and summarises the keypoints without going into detail. No words of concern included. No new facts introduced in the lead that are not dealt with in the article body. Good MOS compliance.
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.	Referencing was used correctly. Any issues have been addressed.
	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).	Good quality sources were used. Multiple law journals were cited and indeed most academic thoughts were cited to an academic source.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As above. The author has gone to great effort in citing all required sentences. Quality referencing is throughout. References 8, 10, and 16 were checked and fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article is succinct.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Great length. This article is complete without being verbose or straying off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Presents the facts in a neutral way and discusses some literature without inappropriate synthesis of sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Editing history is stable.
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.	Appropriate use of image.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The one included image is relevant, being that of the initial chief judge. I would like to see more images, but this is no barrier to passing.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article easily meets basic editorial standards and is of solid quality. Passes GA criteria with ease. Well on its way to being A class or featured with expansion of all relevant literature.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following 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: promoted by Ktin (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Midway Manufacturing sued Artic International for selling circuit boards of that contained an alleged clone of Pac-Man and a "speed-up kit" for Galaxian? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=hasWEAAAQBAJ&dq=midway+v+artic&pg=PT146#v=onepage&q=midway%20v%20artic&f=false ,https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=elr
  • ALT1: ... that Midway v. Artic helped establish that video games are eligible for copyright protection as audiovisual works? Source: Schlinsog, Melinda J. (2013). "Endermen, Creepers, and Copyright". Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 16: 185–206.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/H. E. and A. Bown

Improved to Good Article status by Jorahm (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 17:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC).

• This new enough GA was nominated in a timely manner. QPQ is present. Hook facts ALT0 and ALT1 check out. No textual issues. Good to go. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)