Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega v. Accolade/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Sega v. Accolade[edit]

Sega v. Accolade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hesitant to try and nominate this for FA status, mostly because in six years on Wikipedia I've never written an FA before. Nonetheless, this is a fantastic article that I've completely redone in the last two months or so, with a little WP:TNT and the help of some great references, including the court opinion itself. After a successful GA review, I added in quite a bit more to gain more depth and more thoroughly cover the case. I believe it's ready for this. I'm sure, however, that it will need a few tweaks per the suggestions of reviewers, in which case I welcome all of the feedback that I can get, so that by the end of this article's candidacy, it is fully ready to be promoted to FA status. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The summary of the case itself and of the ruling both appear comprehensive and well presented. I feel the impact section, however, may be lacking. Since this was a truly landmark case in this field, I would imagine there has been more analysis of the case in legal scholarship. If there really is nothing else, that's fine, but three law review articles appears a bit sparse to me. Also, I am not sure that stating the case had little impact on the participants is accurate. I would have to do a little digging to be sure, but if memory serves, the legal fees and development delays caused by the injunctions were the primary reasons that Accolade nearly went under in 1994 and ultimately ended up under a new management team. Indrian (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I spoke too soon: There is an important part of the story missing. The 9th Circuit ruling established the legal test for determining whether copyright law is violated by reverse engineering, but did not reach a decision on whether or not Accolade violated the law. Accolade and Sega then settled the case in April 1993. While the financial terms were not announced, both sides agreed to pay their own legal costs and Accolade agreed to become a licensee. This part of the story needs to be added to the article. Note, this also directly contradicts the claim in the article that the verdict had little effect since Accolade became a licensee anyway, because the verdict directly led to the settlement, of which the license agreement was one component. Indrian (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. I find it intriguing that the Kent book I utilized hadn't mentioned that, because it had otherwise given a fairly thorough account. I'm sure I can find some more legal scholarly papers; the biggest problem I've had is that since I'm no longer in college, I don't have easy access to a resource like JSTOR, etc. or some other source of papers. There's only so far you can go with Google Scholar, but I will do my best. As for the missing note on the settlement, I'm surprised that didn't come up either. This will be added to the article and I will find the sources to make that happen. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 00:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kent's book is a mixed blessing. His block quotes are wonderful, but his prose is riddled with errors. I have a couple of newspaper article sources that I can use to add the info about the settlement and about Accolade's financial trouble, though I may not get around to it until tomorrow. After checking my files, I made it seem a little more dire than it was; basically, they lost several hundred thousand dollars on $45 million in sales because the company basically ceased operations for five months while they were defending the suit. After that, the board made some changes by bringing in former FAO Schwartz CEO Peter Harris to replace Miller and securing an investment and distribution deal with Warner. Indrian (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right. Fortunately it appears at least the 1UP article had some info about the settlement (and 1UP.com is considered reliable per WP:VG/S). I've added in a separate section for the settlement, and expanded on it with some quotes. The next couple of days may be difficult for me to make changes; I work a rotating schedule with 12-hour days, but I will continue to chug away at this. I've managed to find a couple more articles for development on the impact section; there appears, however, to be so many more at HeinOnline that I don't have access to. If you have some newspaper articles, that would be absolutely fantastic, and I think a barnstar might be in order if you are able to help ;) Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, did not mean to vanish on you for a few days. I should be able to add some info this evening from those newspaper articles I mentioned. I see you are continuing to improve the article as well. I believe we will be able to whip this into shape; you already had it most of the way there before the FAC. Indrian (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, I fleshed out and made some corrections to the sections regarding the court ruling and the settlement. I still need to add some info on the impact of the case on Accolade and polish some other small things here and there. I know we are about to exceed the usual FAC time frame, but I think by the end of the weekend we can probably have this article whipped into shape. Indrian (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would be quite nice. I'm going to be working all weekend, but I'll try to keep touching up as well. I still think it's unusual I couldn't find more about the settlement itself in my research, but that's why Wikipedia is a collaboration project. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anybody out there? No supports, comments, oppositions, nothing in the last few weeks? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Have gone over the article with a fine tooth comb, and don't see anything wrong with it. References are good, lead sums up the article very well, all points of the case seem to be covered in a concise and neutral fashion, grammar and spelling (as far as I can see) are impeccable. First-class work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I keep meaning to add a little more about the financial impact of the case on Accolade, but real life keeps getting in the way. I will add it eventually. Even without that, however, the article does a good job now of describing the flow of the case through the courts, the reasoning of the court's decision, and the impact of the case on copyright law. Well done. Indrian (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if you caught the comment in the first paragraph of the "Appeal to the Ninth Circuit" section, but I do have a quote from Alan Miller on how much of a hit Accolade took overall in terms of this case. The Kent book was quite helpful on that; perhaps just that part of the sentence ought to be moved down to the Settlement section. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I did see that, and I concur it should be moved down. What I am going to add -- with sourcing -- is how the company essentially shut down for a few months because of the injunction and legal battle, suffered a loss, and brought in Peter Harris as its new CEO to attract new venture funding. I think the article works without this, hence the support vote, but it is relevant when discussing the impact of the case. Indrian (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well-written, covers all the points and does a good job explaining a complex subject. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- A belated welcome for your first FAC, Red Phoenix. Just quickly, image and source reviews are required and, as this is your first time here, a spotcheck of sources as well; I've left requests for these at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's been a long time coming. Excited for the upcoming reviews to help hash everything out; I'm sure everything is in order and any concerns can be easily addressed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
Sega Genesis III, which incorporated the TMSS. - No need for a period, as this is not a full sentence.
The Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals Building, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Pasadena, California. - No need for a period as this is not a full sentence.
Otherwise peachy. Two PD (one PD-text logo, one PD-USGov), two self (one by Evan Amos, whose work I'm well aware of and can generally spot a mile away, the other from an editor I am unfamiliar with but who checks all the right boxes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the unnecessary periods have been removed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, images are all good. Just need a source review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source and spot check
  • refs 1a to 1r are all fine
  • Checking refs 4a to 4q was more difficult than it should have been because of the lack of page numbers in the citation. The only indication given in the citation of where to find the info is the chapter name; the chapter goes from p. 364 to 396. All the facts are backed up in the source, with no close paraphrase. I hope the page numbers will be added, and for convenience I add them here.
a – p. 382
b – p. 381
c – p. 383
d – p. 382
e – p. 383
f – p. 383
g – p. 383
h – p. 384
i – p. 384
j – p. 385
k – p. 386
l – p. 386
m – p. 387
n – p. 387
o – p. 388
p – p. 386
q – p. 388

Nothing to do with this source check, but I think "The court did not buy the argument" rather too slangy for comfort in an encyclopedia article. Otherwise I congratulate the authors of the article for so clearly explaining the facts of a complicated case in terms that a layman like me can understand. Tim riley (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All remaining comments have been addressed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments (2) -- Tks Crisco and Tim for those checks. Red, only thing now that jumps out at me is that the second para under Appeal to the Ninth Circuit should, like all others, end with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sega_v._Accolade/archive1&oldid=1136095578"