Template:Did you know nominations/Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.

The following discussion 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: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 13:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc. determined that a performance made available by transmission constituted a public performance, and subject to copyright infringement?

Created/expanded by Eh71intprop (talk). Nominated by Kaffyne (talk) at 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think it should be okay; note, nomination was within five days of creation. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• The review does not given confidence; it would have been nice to know what issues made the reviewer hesitate to give a simple pass. Also, as all the sources seem to be online, there doesn't seem to be a justification for using the AGF tick instead of the normal green one.

My concerns are with the amount of close paraphrasing in the article from the court's decision, as evidenced by the Duplication detector results. The final sixteen words of the intro are identical except for tense, the phrase "showing of a motion picture's images and in making the sounds accompanying it audible" is unchanged, and there are many other places that need work. (Some phrases have to be copied, like the names of cases, decisions, and laws.) Another concern is with the number of primary sources used, versus secondary ones. Two of the four secondary sources are for external links, and thus not relevant. Finally, the "Liability of co-defendants" section does not have an inline source citation, as required for every paragraph in the body of an article by DYK. (A "note" referencing another Wikipedia article is not eligible; Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source. Also, the section is mentioning co-defendants for the first time. Shouldn't they be introduced earlier, in background? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Although significant edits were made by Vijwiki in the 24 hours after I posted the above, there are still problems with duplication including the specific phrase mentioned above, and the edits introduced a bare ref, which is not allowed by DYK rules. The original author hasn't been on Wikipedia for almost a month—the last edit was to post the article originally—and the nominator hasn't edited in three weeks, so no one is around to be responsible for bringing the article up to DYK standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)