Talk:Concurrent use registration

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concurrent use registration article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Concurrent use registration has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 17, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
April 16, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Successful GA nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

Comment: Every effort should be made to simplify language in technical articles such as this. Consider greater use of point form and headings to break up blocks of text and increase reader understanding.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Comment: A difficult subject to find images for. An example of trademarks, for instance the Holiday Inn trademarks referred to in the text, may be appropiate.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.--Michael Johnson (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will continue to work on the points you have raised. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor points. First, some of the sections are very verbose, and seem very technical. I think the information is here, but it might help to try and paraphrase better, and rewrite the language a little bit more in easier to understand terms. The {{cquote}} template also seems to be somewhat overused as well, and some of the quotes might be able to be paraphrased and cited instead of quoted. The purpose here is to write an encyclopedia article defining this particular legal issue, using terms that are best understood by laypeople. It's not necessary to repeat the exact laws and republish information from legal books; readers can go there if they want more details. Rather, summarize the information here, and define the topic of 'concurrent use registration'.

Other than that, this article looks very good. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA status[edit]

@BD2412: - this 2008 GA appears on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023 which is a process of going through some of the "higher-risk" older GAs to see if they still meet the criteria. I'm concerned that this no longer meets the modern GA standards, since aside from the two sentences sourced to Welch's blog, the article is sourced entirely to court cases and the legal code itself. This is less problematic for some areas of the article, but especially the impact section I think should really have some material from secondary legal sources, besides just the two sentences sourced to Welch. Additionally, the article implies that this topic is likely to become more obsolete as internet commerce grows - has this happened in the 15 years since this was promoted? Since you're still active, I wanted to hear your thoughts on this rather than just listing the article for reassessment. Hog Farm _Talk 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally can not imagine the possibility of a concurrent use proceeding succeeding today. Everyone has a website, and everyone can ship nationally. I would need to find a source to support that, and who knows, maybe there are more of them now than ever before. BD2412 T 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]