Wikipedia:Peer review/Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling vs. RDR Books/archive1

Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling vs. RDR Books

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have never written a law-related Wiki article before, and need to know if what I have done so far is in accordance with current standards. Also, I am concerned that the article's current tone is decidedly anti-plaintiff. This is particularly relevant since the judge in this case ruled in the plaintiff's favour. The tone is mainly due to what would appear to be a systemic bias in the news coverage of this case. In my research for this article, the only source which provided useful information from the plaintiff's perspective was The Leaky Cauldron, a fan-run news site that previous peer reviews have flagged as unreliable.

Thanks, Serendi ^pod ous 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well (says this user, about to put up a recent SCOTUS case for PR himself), I would get rid of the intellectual-property box. That's for general topics in IP law, not specific cases. There are boxes for appellate-level opinions of the federal and various state courts, but none yet for trial-level courts since their decisions are not precedent. In fact, it may not need an infobox really; the case's notability (at least currently) comes from who one of the plaintiffs was. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue right off the bat: both the intro and the body should tell us where and what level of court this was filed in. As it is, we find out as we read that it was filed in federal District Court in Manhattan: i.e. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That's important, since after all it is a copyright-infringment suit, where federal courts have original jurisdiction, and those are often heard there due to so many publishers being located in Manhattan. But the article treats that as incidental information. It's not.

Another thing: It's an article about a lawsuit filed in an American court by an American publisher and a British author against an American defendant. Therefore it ought to use US spelling and usage, not UK, unless it chances to quote anything Rowling has written. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]