Wikipedia:Peer review/Odex's actions against file-sharing/archive1

Odex's actions against file sharing
Current event, long-term goal is for the article to pass FAC, would appreciate some relevant suggestions, and some bit of copy-editing.

Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

'''Review by Hildanknight

Great work, Mailer Diablo! The article has considerable GA potential - do nominate it for the GA drive. Once the event and the article stabilises, the article will hopefully be ready for a GA nomination; should the nomination succeed, consider aiming for FA.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Anti-piracy alliance" section needs references.
 * Consider expanding the "Anti-piracy alliance" section (although I understand if there is hardly any information available).
 * For the first two, I'll search for more sources. It might be more viable to shift the lot into a new article. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Transferred to new article. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph of the "Modus operandi" section, "Only a very few cases..." is grammatically incorrect. Either "Only a" or "very", or both ("Only" and "very"), should be removed.
 * ✅. ('Only' removed) - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Reaction" section states that "The actions have attracted international media". However, the section only discusses the reactions of Singaporean anime fans. It should mention the reactions of "international media".
 * International media does not appear to provide any independent opinion other than relaying what the Singaporean anime fans have already said. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Parts of the first paragraph of the "Reaction" section appear to be a "back-and-forth argument between Odex and anime fans". As a result, the paragraph lacks flow. Please think of a better way to organise this paragraph, while maintaining NPOV.
 * ✅ Another editor cut off one portion into a new paragraph. I'll look through again where needed. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Messages include "Me too busy sueing people~" and "Hahahahah! I double-6-ed so many downloaders~ serve them right!". - this sentence is grammatically incorrect.
 * ✅ Edited. [sic] added. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly check for original research (synthesis/original interpretation of law) in the "Odex v. Pacific Internet" and "Legal opinions" sections.
 * Going through the paragraph against the original articles text again. They ideally should be 'as is' form. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed several phrasings in accordance to WP:AVOID. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * References should always be placed after a punctuation mark, without a space in between the reference and punctuation mark. However, several references are not properly positioned. These include:
 * References 2 and 3 in the first paragraph of the lead section (placed before the full stop).
 * Reference 9 in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "Modus operandi" section (no punctuation preceding it).
 * Reference 23 in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "Reaction" section (placed before the comma).
 * References 27 and 31 in the last sentence of the second-last paragraph of the "Reaction" section (placed before the comma).
 * References 15 and 16 in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Odex v. Pacific Internet" section (no punctuation preceding it).
 * ✅ All fixed. Will check on reference sequencing as well. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ensure that the images (especially the ones in the Reaction section) conform to Wikipedia's (overly restrictive) image use policies.
 * ✅ I thought I got rid of that one. I'll remove the two again. It reeks of WP:OR anyway. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)