Talk:Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp./GA1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Jorahm in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 09:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's try another one. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Same thing I said in the other one that I'm a little overwhelmed these days. But I plan to get to this within a week or two. Thank you for working on this one. Jorahm (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You've done a great job with these video game law articles :) It’s cool to see a niche topic covered so thoroughly. The article meets the GA criteria as is so I will pass, comments below are suggestions for further improvement. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Probably should link to Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. when mentioning the case.
- I really like the Claud Stern quote, the fact that it was their lawyer saying that is entertaining. Does trial counsel need to be capitalized?
Data East was confident in their argument, ironically, because
Don't need "ironically", readers will see the irony without it.- Only one image, it is appropriately tagged.
- Looks like refs #8 and 15 are to the same article.
- For ref #4, I would link directly to chapter 4 of the article.
- I spot checked several of the other references, no issues identified. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is really good news!! I made the edits that you have suggested and marked them as minor. Thank you very much. Jorahm (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)