Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 18:04, 29 September 2008 [1].

Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series[edit]

Nominator(s): Serendipodous


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone many changes since its elevation to GA status and has completed a peer review. Serendipodous 10:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - While the article is nice, it doesn't really explain enough or in some way draw together the broad context of legal actions around the author, publisher, movie producers, and assorted others. If there is such a thing (might be to OR'y). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on how to do that would be appreciated. Serendipodous 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I don't know. I havn't had time to think through what would help, and not be a big OR summary. I would not characterize my comment as an opppose though. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates were messy; I've audited, but didn't fix the MoS breach in "the" 12 September. Tony (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three non-free images have very weak rationales. In fact, none of them seems to meet WP:NFCC#8, as their presence does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and their omission would not "be detrimental to that understanding". We don't need to see the book covers to understand the discussion of the legal issues concerning these books. —Angr 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Rah and the Muggles and Walk Up To Dragon, the subsections are also the main articles for those books, so the images are there to illustrate the books themselves as well as their legal relation to Harry Potter. Serendipodous 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't articles about the books, they're subsections of an article about legal disputes over Harry Potter. —Angr 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since both are out of print, no one is ever going to be able to verify any plot details or similar about those books, so their legal relation to Harry Potter is all that can be reliably mentioned about them. Serendipodous 19:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the argument "They'll never have articles of their own, so we get to use the cover images in this article instead" doesn't hold water. The images don't contribute significantly to readers' understanding of this article. —Angr 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. But I don't want anyone coming along and saying that this article needs an image in it. Serendipodous 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes them unreliable? As for images... *sigh*. Serendipodous 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a clear case that while images could be used at times, they would require non-frees with tenacious rationales, and thus not really strong candidates (as noted above, the book images really do not qualify as well, unless the issue was really about the cover itself, which it isn't). The only place that I can see free images being used is pictures of Nancy Stouffer, Claire Field, Dmitri Yemets, or the float from the Hindu celebration; the first three are just really extras and are not needed to fully understand the article, and barring existing images, the last one is impossible to reproduce. Barring all that, if there is some (non-free) political cartoon or something akin that images how aggressive the Potter laywers are towards copyvios as to wrap up the whole article, that could be allowable (I do not know of one off hand). This is a clear case where the extent of getting images cannot realistically be expected nor to help the article's comprehensiveness without weighting down non-free use, so the lack of images are fine with me. --MASEM 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some possible images from Wikimedia Commons: Image:Harry Potter 7 boxes.JPG or Image:Harry Potter VI boxes.jpg (the Legal Injunctions section). There's also Image:Harry Potter OotP Amazon box.jpg, an Amazon.com box saying "Deliver on June 21". Image:Jk-rowling-crop.JPG is the only good pic of J. K. on Comm. Also, you could put Image:Ebayheadquarters cropped.jpg in the eBay section if you want, I'm not sure if it'd be relevant tho. Similarly, Image:ASDA Gosforth.jpg could be used the last section if you thought it appropriate.Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RDR Books is the defendant in one of the lawsuits. Why would their site be considered somehow an unreliable source for their opinion? The Bookseller is the most established publishing trade magazine in the UK. AFP is the third largest news agency in the world after Associated Press and Reuters. Oxford University is one of the premier academies on planet Earth. Briffa and Kurit-Seltz are both established law firms. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. Jsecurity and WSWS I can sub. Authorslawyer you're going to have to live with, as it's the only source I can locate with this information that hasn't already been declared moot by previous peer review.Serendipodous 09:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That clears all but AuthorsLawyer, then. I suggest contacting the webmaster/sniffing around to see if it could meet WP:SPS. The current images meet c3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? Send an email saying, "Um, excuse me, some guy on Wikipedia says you're not a reliable source. Could you provide me with proof that you are?" Serendipodous 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice this source at first when I went through the article. It looks like a blog. Generally, there are a few things that can prove that a self-published source meets WP's reliability criteria: a) has it been referenced or used as a source by a magazine/newspaper/journal? b) is the author a recognized expert in the field? Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't find anything. So you should withdraw the nomination. Because there is simply no way I can write objectively about the Stouffer case without referring to the court's decision, and the only way I can refer to the court's decision is through one of the transcriptions online. And online transcriptions of the court's decision are only available from "unreliable" sources. Serendipodous 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed the webmaster of that site, asking how to source the original document. I don't know what else to do. Serendipodous 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He emailed me back. Gave me the primary reference. Swapped it. Serendipodous 21:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • In the Claire field section, IMO the word "threatening" used to describe WB's letters is POV. It doesn't appear in the ref you cited for it. May I suggest removing the word. Picky picky :P
  • What is the outcome of the Preventive Maintenance Monthly case? I'm assuming nothing came of it; if so, please state that in the article.
  • In the Wyrd Sister section, you say that the group claimed to plan to appeal. Did they ever? If they did/didn't, it should be stated.
  • Also in Wyrd Sister, I don't understand why the group took action against the guy from Pulp and the people from Radiohead. Please elaborate. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "threatening." Also found the resolution to the PMM case. I located a quote from the band's lawyer that explained their reasons for suing Pulp; not sure about the source though. Can't find what happened after; unfortunately, when you're looking through the internet you're generally reliant on media sites, and when things get boring the media up sticks and move on without bothering to do any followup. Same thing happened with the eBay case. Haven't been able to resolve that one either. Serendipodous 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, an anonymous user keeps adding material about the Wyrd Sisters case, but I have to remove it, because I've never been able to cite it. Serendipodous 19:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Everything looks good now. I changed some of the wording in the Wyrd Sisters section. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by karanacs. All the issues below have been corrected. Karanacs (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Comments by karanacs. Overall, I thought the article was remarkably comprehensive and very well-written. There are a few minor things that should be fixed, however, then I'll be happy to support.[reply]
    • I think you probably need a source for this: "When the actual novel Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released in 2003, interest in the unauthorised book quickly faded."
    • "China's Legal Times " - is that a newspaper or magazine? If so, it should be in italics
    • "It is estimated that there are fifteen million fraudulent Harry Potter novels circulating in China today" - can you put a date on the "today"? Is that "as of 2008, as of 2007..."?
    • The references are not all formatted the same way.
      • For example, in the first three references, number 1 (Potter author zaps court rival) is formatted the same as 3 (Fake Harry Potter novel hits China), but number 2 (Rowling seeks "Grotter" ban) is formatted differently.
      • Ref 16 (Ottenheimer closing down) is also not formatted consistent with the others

Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, I think. Serendipodous 07:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Hey Serendi, long time no see :)! Comprehensive, seems pretty good. —Sunday | Speak 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of cleanup needed in citations, incorrect WP:ITALICS on some of the publishers (periodicals, newspapers and magazines are in italics, websites, corps and orgs are not), incomplete citations, missing titles and publication dates ("The Preventive Maintenance Monthly" (2004). Retrieved on September 8, 2007. and missing dates throughout (sample http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSWEN939320070718), dead links (The Preventive Maintenance Monthly" (2004). Retrieved on September 8, 2007. ) and more. Please have someone familiar with consistent citations go through and clean up all the citations. I see above that a non-reliable source was switched to a primary source; has someone reviewed that the primary source is used within policy? Also, please check the dab links, one is identified by the dabfinder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now I believe that the substance of this article is feature-worthy, but that the prose needs to be polished and that the citations need to be thoroughly checked and formatted correctly. After these things are done, I see no reason why the article can't become featured. Some examples:

Prose and MOS:

  • Since first coming to wide notice in the late 1990s, there have been a number of legal disputes over the Harry Potter book series by J. K. Rowling. - comma splice - notice the change in subject between the first part of the sentence and the second - needs to be rewritten
Changed back to my original wording. It was changed by someone else. Left it because I thought it was an MOS issue. Serendipodous 15:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rowling, her publishers and Time Warner, the owner of the rights to the Harry Potter films - give name of publisher
She has many publishers. Added "various". Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • have taken numerous legal actions to protect their copyright, and also have fielded accusations of copyright theft themselves - copyright or copyrights?
changed. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • other attempts have targeted not-for-profit endeavours and have been criticised as a result as too draconian - "as a result" is unnecessary
Fixed. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another area of legal dispute involves a series of injunctions obtained by Rowling and her publishers to prohibit anyone from reading her books before their official release date - should be "release dates"
Fixed. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These injunctions have very sweeping powers - "very" is unnecessary
Reworded. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to translated excerpts, almost the entire book consists of the verbatim text of The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien with most names changed to those of Harry Potter characters. - wordy
reworded. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book was quickly recognised as fake - "a fake"
tidied. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one point the article talks about the "High Court of Delhi" and at another it talks about the "High Court of New Delhi" - which is correct? (New Delhi is contained within Delhi.)
The sources conflict. I assume it's New Delhi, but I don't know. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check with an Indian editor. I would guess it is Delhi, since that is the name of the entire city and New Delhi is just one part of it. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indian editor noted discrepancy. Changed. Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one AE spelling in the article. It might be worth checking the article over again for any AEisms and switching them to BE.
My British spellchecker couldn't find any. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check WP:PUNC - if a phrase is not a complete sentence, the punctuation marks go outside the quotation marks.
Fixed I think. Serendipodous 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations follow an inconsistent format. It looks like they should all have author, original publication date, article title, publication, retrival date, but they don't all follow that. Someone needs to painstakingly go through all of the citations and fix them.
  • The nominator asked me to check over the sources. I have looked at the first half; hopefully I will be able to get to the rest tomorrow:
  • This Geist source gives newspaper publication information on the site. I would use that as part of the reference in the note.
Added. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This story looks like it comes from the children's BBC - I would not use that - not the most reliable source!
Well, it's a BBC news site, so I doubt it's any less reliable than any other, but subbed anyway. Serendipodous 09:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't want to be using children's news stories as sources on Wikipedia! I can see the headline in the press now! :) Can you provide the link for the new source here so that I don't have to hunt for it? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here. Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did for me. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not working for me. Does it work for others? Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's intermittent. The server must be having problems. It's a fairly big British news organisation, so chances are it will be back online. Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working now. Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this an interview with Rowling? If so, that should be stated in the reference.
added. Serendipodous 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. It's just a legal analysis. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a published legal analysis, though, in the sense that it is in a law journal - it has not been peer-reviewed or fact-checked. This falls under WP:SPS. We therefore need to establish that the authors are copyright experts. Even if we could do that, however, I would be leary of using this source, because it is published by a commercial firm on their website. This is hardly a disinterested venue. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, I'm running out of sources for those quotes. There aren't that many online sources willing to hold onto quotes from a minor ten-year-old copyright case that everyone else has forgotten about. Sooner or later it will have to be accepted or this nom will have to be dropped. Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or you'll have to switch to offline sources! :) Again, I believe source reliability is paramount. If a source isn't reliable, we can't use it. Awadewit (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer, and, more to the point, I don't live in the United States. I have no idea how to track down such sources. The original source for the appeal claim was the Entertainment Law Digest. However, the Entertainment Law Digest throws away all its material over a year old and also does not have a contact page. I can't leave this information out. It has to be in the article. What am I supposed to do? Serendipodous 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to use this source, prove it is reliable under WP:SPS. That is, demonstrate that the authors are published experts in the field (copyright law). Please note that WP:V is a core policy - we cannot include information because we want to, we can only include information if we can verify it using a verifiable source. Awadewit (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly want to use that source; it's just the only source on the subject I can find. And it isn't a matter of wanting to include the information, either; that information is necessary for the article. Not to include it gives a false impression of the article's subject matter. Serendipodous 13:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have three choices: 1) Demonstrate that the source is reliable under WP:SPS. 2) Leave out the information. 3) Look for a new source. Awadewit (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) I can only do so much in that regard. As I said above, I don't live in the US, so tracking down that kind of information is difficult. 2) Not an option. There is some info that can safely be removed from the article. This doesn't qualify. 3) All online sources go back to this one. Serendipodous 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all sources go back to this one, and we can't verify it as reliable, that is extremely suspect and the information should definitely be removed. Note that WP:SPS says "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." - If no reliable source has said this information, I would not include it. Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm supposed to leave an account of a trial without any mention whatsoever of its appeal? Serendipodous 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying there is not one reliable source that mentions the appeal? That is hard to believe. Let me look around. I'm really sick, though, so it could take me a day. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too find it hard to believe. And I've been looking for days. Can I sat as an addendum that I appreciate you taking the time to wrangle with my petulance while ill? Serendipodous 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This piece of information is not the source we are disputing. In fact, I don't know where it came from. I went back in the history and saw it was originally sourced to a court opinion from 2002. That can't be, though, since the event took place in 2004. I have just removed this alleged fact and placed it on the talk page. I can't find any verification for it anywhere. Perhaps someone misread an article somewhere. If an appeal did happen, it would have made news. We can keep looking, but for now, let's remove this information since we can't verify it. Let's move on to the problem of verifying the information actually cited to the problematic source. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I am correct, this site is not used in the article anymore, so what are we even debating about?! Awadewit (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has revealed a problem with the original source. The original source for the 2004 appeal was the Harry Potter Automatic News Aggregator, which cited the Entertainment Law Digest. The HPANA however incorrectly quoted the 2002 ruling in its summation of the appeal, and, since I was looking for that quote initially, I kept being sent back to the 2002 ruling. However, much of the rest of the quoted material appears to be from the appeal ruling. I don't know for sure, since I can't find the original ruling. Serendipodous 11:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Entertainment Law Digest article on the appeal? Have you been able to track that down? Awadewit (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to find an email to contact the webmaster. Assuming I hear from him, I should know by Monday. Serendipodous 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This link doesn't work for me and appears to be in Dutch - that needs to be indicated in the reference.
Up to date ref subbed. And it its language is mentioned in the reference. Serendipodous 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comes from a corporate website - I'm not sure why we would be using it. It looks like a press release.
Subbed. Serendipodous 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the new source here for ease of review, please? Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is it, I think Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This website is unfamiliar to me - what makes it reliable? Is it necessary?
A previous FAC reviewer asked why the Weird Sisters had sued Jarvis Cocker. That was the only source I could find. The same quote was repeated in many other sources, but none were any more "reliable" than that one. Serendipodous 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This does not really explain what makes this source reliable, though. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whether you think the information is necessary. If the information is necessary, that's the only source I can find for it. If it isn't necessary, it can be removed. Serendipodous 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should always start with the question if whether or not the source is reliable. If the source isn't reliable, we cannot include the information. If we cannot demonstrate that this website is reliable, we need to remove the information. Awadewit (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, xfm is a fairly well-known and established UK music station. I don't know if that constitutes a reliable source, but it's not a hobby site. Serendipodous 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I assume then that there is some sort of vetting process before information goes on their site? Awadewit (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. It's not worth tracking down a solid source for. Serendipodous 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 34 and 35 are the same source and could be combined - "Winnipeg folk band"
done. Serendipodous 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their suit, Rowling's lawyers also asserted that, as the book describes itself as a print facsimile of the Harry Potter Lexicon website, it would publish excerpts from the novels and stills from the films. Such borrowing is allowable if no profit is intended. However, the book is intended to be sold commercially. - I don't think this entire statement is upheld by the citation to the RDR books website. You probably need a citation for the part "In their suit, Rowling's lawyers also asserted that..." and "Such borrowing is allowable if no profit is intended"
Reworded and added a source. Serendipodous 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I finished checking through the sources and added just two other small issues to the list above. Awadewit (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of remaining objections: At this point, there is just one questionable source that needs to be worked through, the citations need to be tidied up, and the entire article needs to have its prose polished (unless that has already been done?). Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sentence "In 2005, after being offered CAD$50,000 by Warner Bros., Canadian folk band the Wyrd Sisters undertook a legal action against Warner Bros., " is a bit hard to follow. Why was the band offered money in the first place? --HJensen, talk 13:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It should make sense now. Serendipodous 16:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • Check throughout for stuff like this.
  • BBC is linked in ref 3 but not in ref 2... probably easier to just link the lot rather than have half done.
    • (Saw this in ref 11) and BBC shouldn't have italics
  • "as well as movie rights holder Warner Bros." - delink, at least, and probably rmv the "movie rights holder" bit as that's already been said
  • "In 2007, Christopher Little, Rowling's literary agents" - probably better to use the full name (Christopher Little Literary Agency), otherwise it's a bit confusing...
  • "the magazine agreed never to use the characters again" - can you just say "agreed to not use the characters again" - never again is somewhat dramatic
  • Is "Warners" commonly used in place of "Warner Bros." (rather, should it be?)

Giggy (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issues sorted. Ref issues will be sorted with the rest. Serendipodous 08:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as the comments above are resolved. Also, I would add the word "series" to the end of the name of the article since right now is kind of confusing. Nergaal (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK. Every ref that can be upgraded has been upgraded. Serendipodous 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  1. It's the Delhi High Court. There is no New Delhi High Court If you get stuck on these issues, WP:IN can help resolve it. The Delhi High Court is located in New Delhi, but the lower level court name is usually taken after the name of the state (eg Karnataka High Court). I've made the fix in one section. You need to make the fix in the eBay section.
  2. The court has issued a verdict on Hari Puttar a day back. The section needs to be updated.
  3. after an altercation with a weapon doesnt read too well
  4. came close to legal action (how close?) --> How about contemplated legal action? instead?
  5. quietly began to allege --> I did not figure out the meaning. Copyedit required (tense and redundant words)
  6. some news agencies --> WP:AWT
  7. Do give US$ equivalents to CAD and GBP since most international currency transactions are in USD.
  8. 1 am BST --> UTC equivalent needed
  9. Overall: Needs a copyedit

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your editorial issues are fixed. I added the dollar figures, but I don't see the point, since it now means this page will be obsolete by Friday. I can't change the BST figure because it's in a quote. If I add UTC in brackets it will appear as part of the quoted statement. Serendipodous 16:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I didn't get you. Are you saying the page will become obsolete because of currency fluctuations? If so, we do not have to give the precise value. Just an approximate value so that it stands true at least for the rest of the year. Template:INRConvert is one that does so automatically. 2) Since BST is quoted, (I did not notice that), I've revoked the comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read this for the second time today, I cannot see any significant remaining issues. It's a pity that Wikipedia's ridiculously hard line on copyright means that the only images left add nothing to the article. Would the publishers/Rowling really go to court if we showed the books? jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have a wiki article named "Legal disputes over x" in which one paragraph is discussing the court dispute over the wiki article "Legal disputes over x". :D Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With a topic as broad as this, it would seem almost impossible for it to be comprehensive or stable in the future. Also, there are citation needed tags. This is an instant disqualifier for FA. This also reads as a list and probably better to be placed under Featured List. Furthermore, there is no mention of the actual legal case names. Some sections read like trivia. It has little encyclopedic content. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a citation needed tag, which I placed there during the FAC process, because the source originally used for it was deemed unreliable. Since there is some question as to where a reliable source could come from, I have placed it there until the issue is resolved, which won't be until Awadewit returns. I think that to describe this as a list would require a fairly loose interpretation of the word "list". Serendipodous 06:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that "stability" is defined more on a day-to-day, edit-war level than on a long-term level. For example, biographies of living people have become FAs despite the fact that they are clearly not "stable" when it comes to article structure or content. Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like Religious debates over the Harry Potter series and Catherine de' Medici's building projects, which are list-like in structure but still have readable prose have already passed FAC, so I think this is where this article belongs. Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I was around during their review, I would oppose both of them as FAs. They are clearly lists. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you consider that all wikipedia entries are lists? Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us, Nergaal (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moni3

  • I agree with Rocksanddirt that a unifying concept needs to be included. Perhaps a discussion of how Rowling and her attorneys, or the publishers have approached these legal issues: an opening paragraph for each section. I understand Rowling discusses her books with fans quite a lot. There must be quotes about her philosophies on treating fans vs. charlatans. Statements by her publishers that address how they will pursue copyright violators and other legal problems. Including statistics on how popular these books have been, how quickly they sell, and the anticipation surrounding the release of the books and films should also add to the logic behind why there are so many disputes. The article reads well, but the unification of all these concepts is necessary. If you can do that, I will be happy to support.
You're right. Such a rewrite would take a long time, however. I think perhaps it's best if we close this down. I'll try again once I've given this some thought. Serendipodous 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


'I would like to withdraw this nomination until the issues raised can be dealt with. Serendipodous 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series/archive1&oldid=1080990649"