Talk:Criticism of copyright/GA2

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See WP:OVERLINK. "The authors stops short of stating that copyright law has been made redundant by the rise of "the darknet""--the word you're looking for might be obsolete, but it's certainly not redundant. Magazine/Newspaper titles need to be italicized.

fixed the obsolete--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

have ita the magazine name--SasiSasi (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "Anti-copyright arguments question the logic of [...] spirituality." Unreferenced in lead and body. Also, first paragraph of Web 2.0 really reads like OR.

started looking at the language and sources (one source was wrong) to get rid of the OR feel. still needs work.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

removed spirituality, was a thing from the old version of this article.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Anti Patent does not belong in this article, without more context and explanation--Can it be broken out and referenced separately?

moved into its own article.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Just fine.

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Wouldn't hurt to have more, but this is acceptable.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Look at all the typos, grammar, and whatnot that I fixed while doing this review. Overall, the prose needs a good once-over and copyediting. References have apparently improved since last GA review, but as it stands now, they're good sources, but cited sparingly--sometimes it seems one reference is meant to cover multiple sentences. Fix the overlinks and add italics per WP:MOS#Italics. Strongly consider removing Anti-Patent to its own article--it's a different beast, and feels a bit like a WP:COATRACK in here. This is an important topic to cover well, and I encourage you to keep up the good work. Unfortunately, this is not yet GA class. Since you've been working on it actively, I'm placing it ON HOLD for one week for the editors to make corrections and improvements. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In need of copyediting - I am not the right person to do that, not sure how I get hold of a wikipedian with that particular skill?--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow Up

• So, I can possibly do some copyediting on this. If you don't mind, I can go through and tag things that I see as needing expert interpretation, and I can try and fix simple problems myself.
• You still need to fix the linking per WP:OVERLINK--Copyright appears *five* times in the lead. Only the first should be wikilinked.

Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No progress has been made on this bullet. Are you still working on this article? Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regretfully, failing due to lack of forward progress. Feel free to nominate again once the issues have been addressed. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, real life was taking over big time!! I will address the remaining points from the GA review this weekend, and then we can see about re-submission. Ta--SasiSasi (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)