Template:Did you know nominations/Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc.

(

)

... that renting out DVDs by streaming them online was determined to be an illegal business in the U.S. copyright case Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc.?

Created/expanded by Ruidai (talk). Nominated by Qqz (talk) at 08:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article length, but there may be some POV issues in the lead. A lot of quotes, maybe too many. Some text is taken from the court's decision verbatim without quotation marks, so there may be a plagiarism issue. The hook is short but maybe a bit misleading. ypnypn (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed the too many quotes in the intro, moving them to a separate impact section. Can you point out sections that are taken verbatim? Frgx (talk)

There are still significant problems with sourcing. Every time there is a quote, that quote must be explicitly cited by the end of the sentence after the quote ends. (Multi-sentence quotes are cited after they end.) Further, for DYK, every paragraph should contain at least one source. The only sources given in th entire Opinion section are the two laws, covering two paragraphs; everything else is unsourced. Until these issues are addressed, there is no point in calling for a re-review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added citations for the material taken from the court findings, which are public domain and are now clearly attributed, so there is no immediate problem there. I am not entirely comfortable with the degree to which this article may be a selective extract of information from the opinion and a selective collection of views. That is, it may rely too much on a primary source, and may not be entirely neutral. Perhaps another editor can comment on whether these block publication on the front page? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Further review needed to address the primary source and neutrality issues noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has taken this up, I've looked into it myself. In my opinion, the primary source issue is too pervasive to allow this article to appear in DYK. The entire "Opinion" section is based exclusively on primary sources: the decision itself and two sections of the copyright act. This section was mostly unsourced before Aymatth2 added source citations at the end of all previously unsourced paragraphs, but does not identify inline quote sources, which it should even if from the same decision. But that's detail: the overall picture is of an article that is far too heavily reliant on a primary source, and one where the Impact section gives no weight to the plaintiff's side, which leaves open also the question of neutrality. As the authors—from a class using Wikipedia on line—are long gone, and no action has been taken in the month since Aymatth2 expressed discomfort with various aspects of the article, I think it's time to close this as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)