Template:Did you know nominations/Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.

 * ... that in Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., a company from Ohio was sued by a company from Florida in California court?

Created/expanded by Fmyd (talk). Nominated by Noahj ucb (talk) at 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg A number of current problems. The article needs to be linked in the hook.  I had to Google first to find the correct Wikipedia article.  Primarily though, I'm having real difficulty verifying the hook.  There's only a few mentions of sufficient/minimum contracts in the article, and I'm not sure they equal what is being claimed in the hook.  I can't tell where the hook is directly sourced in the article, so I can't go about verifying it (not to mention the fact that all but one of the article refs are offline/unlinked). matt (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a link to the article, and modified the hook to be more specific to the case described in the article (see references to the court ruling for citations). --Noahj ucb (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nom responded to issues 19 days ago.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The hook is much better now. I've added a reference for the first part of the hook (directly citing that Mavrix sued Brand).  Regarding the "in California court" bit – is this common/proper terminology? The italicised phrase is not used in the article (or this document) and a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything.  Finally, the hook isn't terribly catchy or unique (see WP:DYKHN H7) – it's effectively "A sued B".  Could we give more details of the case if it's a particularly notable one? Maybe cite the "prominently popular website" and use that in the hook?  matt (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg 5x expansion and dates (at time of nomination) are acceptable. However, Article needs additional citations to sources in order to meet DYK rules. The two "Facts" sections have no footnotes (if the "facts" came from the decision, cite it), the two "Conclusion" sections are largely uncited, and there are points elsewhere (such as the US Supreme Court denial of the petition for writ of certiorari) that should be sourced, but aren't. --Orlady (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Issues still present. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's no one to work on this article any more. The nom was accidentally untranscluded on March 28, right after Matt's review the day before. It was restored in late May, and by then the nominator and author were both long gone from the site. While someone else from one of the online law courses did a bunch of work on May 3, that person hasn't edited since (and had previously edited March 3). If there's no one here to do the final sourcing, then it does have to go. Seems a shame, though. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to assume that most or all of the uncited content is sourced to the court opinion. I haven't had the patience to read it to find out... --[[User:Orlady|Orlady] (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)