Talk:Gyles v Wilcox/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I'll kick of the review on this one. As a first comment, the secondary sources used look good and the article, despite its brevity, appears comprehensive. I'll start with some comments on the lead. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead
 * Is the High Court of Chancery a court of Great Britain? Its WP page says it is a court of England and Wales (ie not Scotland).
 * Fixed, stupid mistake, as the one time I say GB should have been England.


 * "the modern idea of" seems superfluous.
 * Removed


 * "Soon after" needs to be "soon after something" because referring back to the previous sentence it could mean "soon after the case was heard" not "soon after Gyles' book was published".
 * Changed to "soon after the initial publication"


 * The final sentence of the lead, particularly after the second comma, doesn't seem to be based on any of the article's contents (and thus lacks a source). If the sentence is intended to reflect Hartwicke's quote at footnote 19, I think it might be reading a bit too much into it.
 * I have added a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the "consequences" section to support it, and re-worded the lead sentence a bit. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - moving onto the next sections: --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Facts and Arguments
 * "Wilcox publication": Should this be "Wilcox and Nutt publication"?
 * Fixed.


 * "Wilcox, Barrow and Nutt": Was Barrow a defendant or was it only the publishers? If they were all defendants it would be good to make that clear.
 * Made more clear in the "facts" section.


 * "an author, or purchaser of an author's copyrights as Gyles was": Isn't Gyles just the author? This phrase seems to suggest he purchased the author's copyrights.
 * No, as the facts section states, Gyles was the publisher of the book and had bought the publishing rights. He did not write it, but had exclusive rights to publish it in England. The author is never stated in any sources; I would like to think it is Matthew Hale (jurist), but that is purely OR.


 * "Fletcher Gyles": deep into the article we can drop "Fletcher" for consistency.
 * Dropped the second usage in the article body.


 * "appeared before Hardwicke": this is the first mention of Hardwicke outside the lead. I think we need an explanation here of who Hardwicke was and what his role in the case was (ie the judge).
 * Defined role more clearly


 * "Hardwicke further took contention": What is the purpose of this sentence? I'm not sure as the reader why it is relevant that the judge found that the statute is not a monopoly (whatever that means) but instead has educational goals. It perhaps links to the next paragraph below but the link could be clearer.
 * I have re-worded the sentence, hopefully for the better.


 * "Wilcox argued" and subsequent mentions of Wilcox: these should probably be "Wilcox and Nutt".
 * Changed to "the defendants" to avoid awkwardly listing three names multiple times.


 * "Wilcox's lawyers furthered pushed the court to try the case as if Gyles' book had been recorded in the Stationers' Register, and the lawsuit brought against a second published book." What is the significance of the book being recorded in the Register? Ie, why is this argument important?
 * Clarified this sentence.
 * Thanks although I think "Gyles and Nutt" needs to be "Gyles and Wilcox and Nutt". --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are still talking of the same sentence, then it should only mention Wilcox and Nutt, the publishers of the abridgement.

Hope I have helped clarify the issues in the article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just one outstanding comment above, and moving onto the final section below.

Judgment and Consequences
 * "Gyles printing rights" seems to be missing an apostrophe in Gyles.
 * Fixed


 * "and differed from the original published work in a significant way" seems to need that before differed when the sentence is read in full.
 * Fixed


 * Sayre v Moore: I don't think this source ties Sayre v Moore to Gyles v Wilcox. It only says the judgments were "similar", not that the former used the latter to justify its decision (ie citing it as an authority).
 * Reviewing the source, you are correct, and I removed the sentence.


 * "In fact, the case was frequently cited in English courts as the doctrine of fair use evolved, and the United States federal courts have cited the case as recently as the 1980s." This sentence is cited to a 1986 US judgment. This might be able to support the second half of the sentence as a primary source, but I don't expect it could support the first part of the sentence ("frequently cited in English courts"). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the statement with a more general one about it playing a large role in the development of English copyright law, which is stated in the source given. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - GA passed as meeting all the GA criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)