Talk:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 15:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, Jorahm. I saw this nomination had been unreviewed for over four months at this point, so I decided to take it on. I look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Background

• Provide pages for the third citation (Jamie Lendino's 2020 Attract Mode)

• before running out of fuel or crashing into an obstacle - The reference does not state this. Either find a source that supports this sentence, or remove it.

• secured an exclusive from Konami - An exclusive what?

• The information structure of the second paragraph in the section reads kind of backwards; I'd suggest introducing Omni Video Games and their game Zygon before you introduce the lawsuit against them.

• Link injunction

• The third paragraph contains a lot of information that bears little relevance to the case. I'd suggest removing most of it and placing it after the first paragraph and before the second that introduces Omni's game.

• According to WP:VG/RS, Sega-16 hosts user-contributed articles, and is therefore an unreliable source.

This section requires some editing to meet GA criteria (1a, 2c, and 3b), but at least it's not that long. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ruling

• Please provide pages for the sources. As it is, it is fairly time consuming to verify the information.

• Link appellate court and good faith

Not much else to comment on here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Impact

• Again, provide pages for the sources.

• It is noted - By who?

• Hemnes summarizes - This should be past tense.

• that can be displayed with the benefits of other technological components - What does this mean?

• remembers - I'd suggest going with more specific wording. I'd also suggest adding a date/year to this sentence.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• held that Omni violated Stern's copyright - I suggest using their full names in the first sentence, i.e. Omni Video Games and Stern Electronics.

• Why does "fixed" link to Fixation in Canadian copyright law? This case did not take place in Canada

• Link injunction

ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Overall assessment

Most of the article reads fine. The biggest problem I have is the structure of the background section. I checked for copyright violations with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and found nothing. The image used in the article has a valid free-use rationale. The article addresses the main aspects of the topic, but I feel like the background section goes into unnecessary detail. I haven't verified everything yet, but I'll get around to that once you've rectified the concerns I've listed above. Good work so far. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I tried to address all of your comments including the background section which I cut in half. I kept half of it to establish that this was an important game both commercially and artistically and to explain why another company would be interested in counterfeiting it. The prior lawsuit around Zygon might seem confusing at first but it is not the actual legal dispute at issue in this article. It is a previous dispute and shows that Omni had a history of breaching intellectual property. The old dispute makes more sense once the court decides that they were never operating in good faith. Let me know if you have any further comments and I will do my best to address them. Jorahm (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my appologies. It seems I didn't read the article carefully enough. I'll come back and reread all of it some time in the following days to properly assess it. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I made some small edits to the page, but otherwise there's nothing to comment on. I feel comfortable passing this article, as it fulfills all the criteria. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a court case ruled that video games may qualify for multiple types of copyright protection? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=A9FCEAAAQBAJ&dq=Stern+Electronics+v+Kaufman&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q=Stern%20Electronics%20v%20Kaufman&f=false
  • ALT1: ... that Stern Electronics sued Omni Video Games for a game they believed was infringing on Scramble's copyright? Source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10750773141079770102&q=stern+electronics+inc+v+kaufman&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33
  • ALT2: ... that Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman was one of the first lawsuits prompted by the increase in "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s? Source: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1048&context=elr. Page 140-146
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Meadow knapweed

Improved to Good Article status by Jorahm (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC).

• Article promoted as GA within week of nom. Article fulfills all requisites of size, neutrality, and sourcing. No copyright issues identified beyond false positives on quotes. No image. Prefer hook one as more interesting and clear. Hooks are sourced and cited according to DYK standards within article. Overall swell job. Congrats on the GA, hope for more like this! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)