Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odex's actions against file-sharing/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.

Odex's actions against file-sharing edit

Self-nomination. This article is about a saga that mostly took place during the month of August 2007 in Singapore, with extensive coverage by the local and international media. It has undergone a peer review and copyedit request. Any suggestions for improvement is certainly welcomed. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- although i do think some portions of the article need an update. E.g. "By 16 August 2007, up to S$3,200 have been pledged for the campaign." -- not so contemporaneous now? Another comment: slightly copious use of "also". Chensiyuan 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Thanks, replaced/paraphrased and deleted some uses of "also" and time-sensitive phrases. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor point: is it "a", or "an", NUS law professor...? Chensiyuan 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is sorely not ready for the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. You should try GAC first, but take note that:
    • The controversy occured only two months ago, and the outcome of the company's appeal has yet to be determined. Is the article stable?
      • All-or-nothing. Unfortunately, I don't believe in going through GAC first. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is reasonably stable given little additions being made for the past month, and that the existing content is not going to change significantly even with the appeal. (which will be on an add-on basis) If an outstanding lawsuit is enough to render the whole article unstable, then the article is never going to be stable. This is a non-actionable factor. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, no instability here. Chensiyuan 06:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article desperately needs a copy-edit. If I didn't have an E Maths paper in half an hour, I would help you look through it for language errors.
      • I've put up a copyedit request, went it through myself, and looking for copy-editiors. Do point out what errors are in the article, so that they can be fixed. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't see how is this actually actionable other than what is already done unless the copyediting errors are specifically pointed out. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead section is a little weak.
      • Would appreciate that you point out in what sense the lead is weak. Please elaborate so that I can improve it. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disappearance of the "Anti-piracy alliance" section (all it need was references) and the lack of information about the reactions of international media (despite the first sentence of the Reaction section proudly claiming that Odex's actions "attracted international media") suggest the article is not comprehensive, although it probably is broad in its coverage.
      • The alliance's text, currently in a separate article does not have much to do with the incident itself, and hence split. I will, however, be drafting a few relevant lines on the alliance's role in the incident. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Downgraded' to national; it is surely covered extensively by the local media. - Mailer Diablo 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've put it back as 'international', as it appears that now the C&D emails are hitting internationally and gaining attention from the world. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoid self-references, such as the wikilink in "several criticisms of Odex were added to its article on Wikipedia".
Have a nice day! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Quite a gem really, but I have to say occasionally I get the feeling I'm reading a well organized collection of newspaper reports! Manderiko 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • It's fine and readable. Leranedo 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Few things but not sure how you would want to handle them. First, Reference 2 (Kicking kids for profit?) is just a blog entry that as far as I can see doesn't add anything that the professional new articles don't already cover - might want to just remove it. Second, reference 56 to Salon.com's Asian Kung-Fu Generation doesn't lead anywhere (dead link?). Third, in "Modus operandi" it says "...in all three cases." but at that point in the article only the first two cases have been introduced - the third case isn't mentioned until the next section. --maclean 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Ref 2 removed. (no implications, covered by other sources). - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 56 is live and working. Appears perfectly fine in Internet Explorer, might work erratically under FireFox for some reason. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Added the suit against PacNet in said point of article. The lead-in also introduces the third case in a brief summary format to give the reader what to expect in the following sections. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article, well written. Meets all criteria for FA. Terence 13:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "This data is then used to subpoena the courts to require that ISPs reveal the personal information associated with the given IP addresses." appears to sound wrong -- I mean if you click on the wikilink to "subpoena" one wonders how does one subpoena the courts? Could there be an error here? Chensiyuan 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking aloud again. "letters of legal threat" in first para of lead -- is a letter threatening legal action condensed legitimately into a "letter of legal threat"? Chensiyuan 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I've changed subpoena to request. It should sound a lot better now. For "letter of legal threat", according to Ars Technica article the term they have used in the context to compare with RIAA is "pre-litigation letters", so I've adapted to that accordingly as well. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Gosh, the opening is a blooper: you shove "the company" in there under the assumption that we already know what you're referring to. Then, you tell us that it's Odex, and provide a little context for the company. "Odex alleges"—present tense is when? Will this last for readers in a year's time? "Out-of-court"—hyphens not required unless attributive. "RIAA"—do we have to interrupt our reading and hit the link to find out what it is? You spell out ISP earlier. "Criticisms towards"—no, "of". "exacerbated by one of its directors' poor response towards the situation"—POV even with the reference (couch it in better wording); "towards" should be "to"; check this word throughout the article. "which ... which". Is this article going to be updated? "Pending an outcome". It's a kind of unstable topic; unsure that it's suitable for FA status on that basis. Now that's just picking random samples from the lead. The whole article needs careful work. Tony (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you shove "the company" in there under the assumption that we already know what you're referring to. Then, you tell us that it's Odex, and provide a little context for the company.
    •  Done Company context inserted in first sentence. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Odex alleges"—present tense is when? Will this last for readers in a year's time?
    • Now. The enforcement action is still ongoing. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Out-of-court"—hyphens not required unless attributive.
    •  Done Fixed. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, in legal parlance, hyphens are the norm, but never mind. Chensiyuan 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "RIAA"—do we have to interrupt our reading and hit the link to find out what it is? You spell out ISP earlier.
    •  Done RIAA -> Recording Industry Association of America. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criticisms towards"—no, "of".
  • "exacerbated by one of its directors' poor response towards the situation"—POV even with the reference (couch it in better wording); "towards" should be "to"; check this word throughout the article.
    •  Done Removed.
  • "which ... which".
  • Is this article going to be updated? "Pending an outcome". It's a kind of unstable topic; unsure that it's suitable for FA status on that basis.
    • The arguments by both parties are summed up. It is now pending decision by the judge. I would reiterate per above, the article is stable even with this lawsuit. It can be updated accordingly. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's just picking random samples from the lead. The whole article needs careful work.
    • Okay, it goes through the League of Copyeditors then. There's just simply not enough copyeditors around; feel free to point out what needs more to be done so that they can be fixed. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Mailer Diablo (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection [1b and organization] It's well written, very well referenced, very nice in general, I think it was smart to move it straight into FAC.
    it's organization is in need of substancial improvement - no "history section" and no "media coverage" section and "illegal downloader reaction" instead some kind of mix between all three. Suggest better organization.
    "modus operandi" should be mostly integrated into history section, kept as separate however, perhaps renamed into a less criminal investigation sounding term.
    Suggestion: "Context" section speaking about the surrounding actions of RIAA, MPAA
    --Keerllston 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your suggestion, but this proposed structure looks very odd to me to be implementable, were you having another particular article in mind? Even if implemented it will require stripping and rewriting the entire article top-down. Other comments :
  • Odex's actions are currently ongoing, and to have a "history" section would sound like the whole operation is already over.
  • "Illegal downloader reaction" is essentially the current "reaction" section as its current form.
  • "Modus operandi" is justifiable being it is considered widely as a form of clampdown or enforcement action. (As indicated within article)
  • Please guide me on how the "Media coverage" should be written; To describe the extent of media coverage would constitute original research. Same goes for "Context", as Odex and RIAA are not directly related in their respective enforcements, just the similarity, I have not even heard of MPAA in any of my sources.
  • If we were to reorganize it into the three sections, what should be done with "Odex v. Pacific Internet"?
Thanks, - Mailer Diablo (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of many countries is currently ongoing, I'm sure you agree, and includes proceedings such as the making of treaties and famous trials (including in this history the case vs. Ocean and other IP providers)
  • "Reaction" - could be more precise than that, could be more NPOV-ly than "Illegal downloader reaction" - may I suggest "P2P community reaction" or similar?
  • split away new section "media coverage" from "Reaction"- by which I did not mean the extent but rather the coverage by newspapers and what they said - like one of japan that it notes was pro-Odex and in fact wanted more.
  • "Modus Operandi" is also latin, and this is an english-language wikipedia, doesn't that encourage you to change it? I think a good option is "Methodology" or "Method"
- Latin is often used where there is an english translation by the Catholic Church and by intellectuals who have learnt latin or want to pretend that they have, it's also used used by Legal and Police authorities in such as "in loco parentis" and "ergo" and "modus operandi", I don't believe Wikipedia is any of the above.
--Keerllston 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I still do not see what a "History" section would contain or would be of use to this article? Also, please explain "History of many countries"? - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Modus Operandi" changed to "Methodology". - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't just the P2P community, but it is the Anime community in general. How about that, having the one "Reaction" section further subdivided into "Anime community", "Media coverage", and "Legal opinons" would be better? - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Work!
History is basically "Chronology" - we are alive in history - we are making history (not that we are heroes or anything) - so far Chronology is not really treated very well in my opinion. and somewhat divided into Methodology, Cases, Reaction - which is perhaps strange but not necessarily objectionable
I like Reaction being split into Anime Community Reaction and Media Coverage.
I like the existence of the section called legal opinions
I also suggested a section on "Context" - how do you feel about the hypothetical section?
--Keerllston 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's enough content to make up a separate "context" section. For the rest, working on it. - Mailer Diablo 13:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder My previous post comprised just random examples. Please find others with strategic distance to copy-edit it. Research the edit summaries on the history pages of similar good articles in this field. Ask them nicely. Tony (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Odex%27s_actions_against_file-sharing/archive1&oldid=1138468174"