Talk:Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp./GA1

GA Review

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)