Wikipedia:Peer review/Odex's actions against file-sharing/archive3

Odex's actions against file-sharing

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is intended to go through Featured Article Candidate, having failed twice previously. This third Peer Review intends to allow it to undergo a very throughout review and scrutiny, to eliminate the possible concerns raised in the previous FACs, before proceeding on.

There are three outstanding issues to be discussed, and I believe that some decisions by consensus has to be made on how they are approached before they become flashpoints on the FAC itself. Some of these "repairs" would not be possible without your collaboration and expertise if it were left everything to myself alone.

  1. Copyediting. The main reason and the single biggest reason why the last two FACs failed. Is the prose sufficiently polished up to be brilliant?
  2. The structure of the article. Should the sections be re-organised? Can the content be able to fit in properly? Does certain headings require renaming?
    Hence or otherwise for (2), the lead-in might be too long. How should it be shortened/revised?
  3. Any content in the article that might be disputed?

I am able to check against all the listed sources. Please copyedit the article if you are able to, and do not hesitate to raise any point that requires new sources or to check against the existing ones. Thank you for taking the time to review the article, Mailer Diablo 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments - I think the lead is particularly important to get right for this type of article. I have edited this section today, but please take these edits as suggestions and feel free to revert anything that you feel is not an improvement. Don't try to include everything in the lead; we have the rest of the article to give the full details. In the lead we need to say:

  1. What the subject is about
  2. What happened
  3. Why it happened
  4. What was the effect
  5. What was the result

No more than a paragraph (or less) for each point. I know this article well because of I have worked on the prose earlier this year, so I hope this peer review attracts other editors who can bring fresh eyes to the article. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that I have seen less prepared articles promoted. Best of luck with the FAC. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parkwells points out that the lead can be improved by focusing on the issues, rather than the day-to-day events. It certainly has improved in that aspect. I'll re-read through it later against the above checklist. I've contacted a number of previous editors, and a few PR regulars that are new to this article. Several haven't responded yet, though I hope they do have a few minutes to provide more insight for the article. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. This looks FAC ready to me, but I do have some nitpicks:

  • I would make it clearer that the people the legal actions were taken against were all in Singapore. Perhaps the first sentence could be Odex's actions against file sharing were legal actions against Internet Service Providers and their subscribers in Singapore.
  • The second sentence in Actions could then be The company tracked people it believed to be illegally downloading its releases in Singapore, ... If I have misunderstood for these first two points, then please tweak these or similar sentences to indicate the geographic area of their legal actions, perhaps "its releases, chiefly in Singapore..." or even just make it clear the ISPs targeted were all based in Singapore.
  • Shouldn't this be plural, i.e. and to ISPs for the retrieval of its [their] subscribers' personal data.[26] ?
  • I would either spell out the abbreviation or at least link VCD (do not know this - assume vdeo compact disc from context) and DVD in first use at Odex blamed the fall in its VCD and DVD sales of up to 70% in 2006 and 2007 on illegal downloading.[38]
  • Problem sentence Odex then promised to improve future anime releases,[40] and blamed the inaccurate subtitling on the fansubbers – anime fans who had translated the Japanese dialogue – whom they had hired and censorship laws against mature themes such as yaoi.[20][28] I would make clearer than just "then" when Odex promised this (previous sentence is 2006 and 2007, so could be sometime then or even 2008). More importantly, the sentence could be clearer, perhaps as something like In 2008 Odex promised to improve future anime releases,[40] and blamed the inaccurate subtitling on censorship laws against mature themes such as yaoi and on fansubbers–anime fans who had translated the Japanese dialogue–they had hired.[20][28]
  • Could this be smoother? Stephen Sing was mocked and criticised after posting comments considered to be gloating to an online forum.[44][45] Perhaps something like Stephen Sing was mocked and criticised after posting comments to an online forum which many considered to be gloating.[44][45] is smoother?
  • Unclear to me - Odex published a quarter-page article in The Straits Times on 22 August 2007 to explain its actions.[46] "published" seems like the wrong verb. Perhaps "wrote" is better? It also sounds more like an advertisement than an article
  • Who alleged this It was alleged that Odex had passed off fansubs as its own work.[1]
  • What is an action figurine protest? An action figurine protest took place on 25 August 2007 under police scrutiny, which was considered by Western observers to be a rarity in Singapore.[52][53][54][55]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've made the necessary changes. For point 5 (I would not say it's 2008, because the response on quality and subtitling were all made in 2007, shortly after the first article on enforcement was published) and the last one, the text has be slightly reworked. Please help me check that the lines read grammatically correct. Do not hesitate to reply here if it still needs further work. - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually not finished my comments - will take a look at the changes and make some more comments on the last part of the article. Am busy at the moment. I used 2008 as a guess in my suggestion, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looking forward to hearing more from you soon. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More from Ruhrfisch The changes look fine to me. Here are my final comments on the article.

  • Should the lead image caption add the word "illegal"? so Odex's head office at International Plaza, where the out-of-court settlements to the company by alleged illegal downloaders were made Also, since it seems to be a complete sentence, it should end in a period (full stop).
  • I am guessing that action figure would be a better link (piped) for "action figurines" than the current red link is, so I changed the link - revert of I am wrong
  • Make sure refs are in numerical order, so fix as an example and experts interviewed by representatives of the local media said that the perpetrator likely originated from Singapore.[64][51]. Also would it read better just to say the perpetrator likely was from Singapore or perhaps the perpetrator likely came from Singapore?
  • Perhaps use "in" here? Although Lau denied Odex the court order, he warned that the right to privacy was no defence to [in?] an action for copyright infringement.[66] or even simpler perhaps (but not sure if this changes the meaning too much though) Although Lau denied Odex the court order, he warned that the right to privacy was no defence for copyright infringement.[66]
  • A bit confusing - there is no previous reference to SingNet having an appeal or a deadline, then we get Meanwhile, SingNet's two week appeal deadline passed,[67][68] ... Can this be explained with a sentence or two before?
  • Since there are three different court cases involving Odex being discussed in this section, perhaps repeating Pacific Internet would make this clearer: In a rare move, District Judge Earnest Lau released a 14-page judgment explaining the court's denial of Odex's request [for Pacific Internet's client information].[14][10] Plus more refs out of order ;-)
  • There is a conversion of S$ to US$ in the lead, then none until now Settlements were reported to range between S$5,000 and S$6,000 (US$4,000) per person,[79] ... I think there should either be equivalents for all S$ or just the first example (in the lead).
  • Be consistent on titles - it is The Straits Times once and then just Straits Times later.
  • A general point - I am not clear where the alleged illegal downloaders got their illegal material - was it through Odex's website? Or was Odex just mad because people were downloading stuff off the Internet instead of paying them for it?

All done, hope this helps. As noted, this seems pretty close to FAC to me. Good luck, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments copied from talkpage) I agree; the lede should be much shorter and focus on an overview of the subject. The number of citataions should be kept at a minimum (ideally, there should be no citations at all) since the bulk of the citation-necessary information will come in the body of the article. The lede should only give a casual surfer a quick one- or two-paragraph summary of the information included in the article, and everything mentioned in the lede should be explained in detail in the body. I just finished a grammar and style copy-edit of the article, and one thing that I did was italicize all the instances of "anime" I could find unless it was included in a direct quote. Anime is italicized in the lede, or at least in the first couple of paragraphs, and I opted to continue in that vein for consistency. If you decide to remove the italics from this word, please do so throughout. Thanks! tanankyo (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "anime" should not be in italics. It is no longer considered a foreign word, as it has a separate meaning from the Japanese definition and is in English dictionaries. It is the practice of the anime wikiproject to have "anime" rendered without italics.--Remurmur (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done cleared out the term of all italics. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]