Wikipedia:Peer review/Odex's actions against file-sharing/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

References : First PR, FAC, GAC

This article is suffering from the The Man, His Son, And the Donkey syndrome. There are a lot of criticisms thrust at it, but nobody is willing to fix it. The single biggest problem is that there are no editors other than myself being able to copyedit it (in which an objection of FAC requires someone with a fresh perspective to review it), and not all objections on the article seem fixable. Which is a waste because content-wise it is comprehensive enough to be an addition to Featured Articles. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be happy to copyedit for a future FAC, and will try and add some comments in the meantime. Give me a day or two and ping me if you haven't gotten anything from me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dihydrogen monoxide comments
    • Most comment I wrote Post-GA are the result of extensive copyediting by maclean25. My thanks go out to him for his fantastic work! - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anime is wlinked twice in the first sentece, which incidentally is very long.
  • Ref 2...pipe the link to the newspaper
  • Also, newspapers as publishers in references need italics (see MOS:ITALICS)
  • "to reveal 1,000 of its subscribers' information" - not clear what the 1000 refers to (1000 subscribers?)
  • "Both companies hired the American company BayTSP, to source out IP addresses, singling out those originating from Singapore and tracking them for several months." - the commas aren't needed
  • I've no idea what AnimeSuki is, and did this offline. The article should give at least some idea without my having to click a wlink.
    • Note to self : consider ", which hosts fansubs,"
  • "all anime AnimeSuki host" - this sentence (especially this bit) needs rewording.
  • "including its third suit that was against Pacific Internet." --> "including its third suit against Pacific Internet."
  • The methodology section should all be in the past tense, I believe.
  • "most of the compensation fees went into covering up the costs went to paying ISPs" - huh??
  • "was the result of illegal downloading" - change was to as
    • (Post-GA) Done -> on illegal downloading - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Firstly, the main committee of the AVPAS is dominated by the Odex directors Peter Go and Stephen Sing...." - from here to end of paragraph is unsourced, OR-ish, and very non-neutral (and there's a date that needs wlinking)
  • "and was taunted openly in his office." - not sure what this is saying...
  • "There was an allegation that Odex was passing off fansubs as its own work" - what's a fansub?
  • ""paying for this mistake ever since"" - this quote needs a citation
  • "By September 2007, 105 out of the 300 SingNet subscribers who received the letters have negotiated and paid to Odex" - paste tense
  • "SingNet's two week appeal deadline passed,[35][69][70] and it was revealed that SingNet" - repetition of the name makes readability poor
  • First paragraph of Legal opinions section (the Today newspaper stuff) again seems OR-ish and POV-ish...rewrite and trim it; you use that a lot more than discussion in any other newspaper

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Would require some assistance in fixing up some of the outstanding ones that I probably have a problem trying to address (I don't mind other editors butchering up the prose it would be address them) - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hildanknight[edit]

Dihydrogen Monoxide keeps harassing persuading me to do GA reviews, so I figured that proofreading this article would be good practice. Hopefully you will find my thorough review useful. I will address obvious and easy-to-fix issues myself, leaving the rest to you or someone whose command of English is better than mine (you will need such people if you wish to take this article to FAC).

  • As Dihydrogen Monoxide said, the first sentence is too long. Perhaps "began tracking IP addresses that were believed to be downloading anime, identifying the Internet users associated with the IP address and threatening legal action against them" could be shortened to "began threatening legal action against users believed to be downloading anime". Details can go into the "Methodology" section.
  • "Between May and August 2007 two out of three subpoenas on Internet Service Providers" does not flow well. Perhaps a comma between "2007" and "two" would do the trick.
  • Change "personal identity" to a better phrase, such as "personal information".
  • "Several" means "three to seven"; I am pretty sure that the number of downloaders who received letters is much higher than that. Do any reliable sources state a more exact figure?
  • "the youngest defendant being only nine years old" does not connect well with the previous clause; perhaps change the comma to a semi-colon and "being" to "was"? Alternatively, you could remove the clause from the lead section (that detail is not that important).
  • It is obvious from the name "Recording Industry Association of America" that the association is located "in the United States"; there is no need to state the obvious.
  • Wiktionary defines "controversial" as "arousing debate". Odex's actions aroused debate among the local anime community, so they were controversial in the local anime community and not just "considered" controversial.
  • Is "unrightful" a word?
  • "that included sending cease and desist emails to downloaders in Singapore, which in November 2007 unintentionally reached several Internet users worldwide": I think the first paragraph of the lead section should focus on Odex's actions while the second should focus on reactions.
  • Be careful about excessive information in the lead, such as " District Judge Earnest Lau ruled that Odex failed to meet a number of requirements for the release of such information, as the company was exclusive licensee for only one anime title and its evidence was found to be unsatisfactory."
  • "Odex would then send a letter to the downloaders": I thought this happens after Odex subpoenas the ISPs to identify the downloaders?
  • "claiming compensation for a sum of money" suggests that the sum of money is the reason why Odex is seeking compensation. Try "claiming a sum of money as compensation".
  • Actually, scratch that. I suggest you remove the third sentence of the first paragraph of the Methodology section as it duplicates a sentence in the second paragraph.
  • "BayTSP has also singled out AnimeSuki as the main source of illegal downloads, thus tracking downloaders who used the torrents from AnimeSuki as the main culprits. This comes despite the fact that all anime AnimeSuki host are not licensed by Odex nor any other American anime company." This is quite confusing.
  • Shorten "from the ISP SingNet" to "from SingNet"; the context makes it clear that SingNet is an ISP.
  • "lawsuit against StarHub, thus forcing Starhub": should the "h" be capitalised or not? Please be consistent.
  • A word is missing between "identities" and "about".
  • Change "explicit consent in writing" to "explicit written consent".
  • "The recipient of such a letter" could be shortened to "The recipient" or "The downloader".
  • "settle the compensation fee settlement": Huh? How about "has to contact Odex and pay the compensation fee, which ranged from S$3,000 to S$5,000, within the week".
  • Is "allerged" a word?
  • Change "if the need be" to "if need be"; is it used correctly?
  • Clarify "unlike other countries".
  • "had been speculated" just sounds incorrect.
  • Is "refutes" the right word? It implies that the so-called refutation is correct. "Responded" (note the past tense) might be a better word.
  • "there are more than 3,000 IP addresses that are the subject of court orders already issued" could be shortened by removing "there are" and "that". Is "subject" used correctly?
  • "most of the compensation fees went into covering up the costs went to paying ISPs" is a mess. The phrase "cover up" means "conceal", so it should be "covering". Furthermore, "went" is used twice. Try "most of the compensation fees were used to cover the costs of paying ISPs" or simply "were used to pay the ISPs".
  • Remove the comma after "paying ISPs".
  • "Two weeks later on 17 September 2007" is redundant. I prefer "Two weeks later" since the previous sentence started with a date.
  • "though Odex claimed that notices were posted on several blogs and forums to warn illegal downloaders" is unreferenced.
  • "by the fact that" is redundant. Just "that" would do.
  • Is "differenciate" a word? I think you meant "differentiate"; if so, add a "between" after it.
  • The word "cites" should not be followed by "was". Consider changing "cites" to "claims" or change "was the result of illegal downloading" to "which they claim was due to illegal downloading".
  • "responded Odex's products" should be "responded that Odex's products".
  • "sharp criticisms were directed at Odex's business model for using a litigious strategy and poor public relations" sounds wrong. Perhaps "sharp criticisms were directed at Odex's poor public relations and use of a litigious strategy"?
  • The description of AVPAS is too long. Wikilink AVPAS and either remove the description or shorten it.
  • "The company and its partners from AVPAS...hold the licensing rights to over 400 titles...and does not make releases for several anime it has licensed lest the more popular ones." Since "The company and its partners from AVPAS" is plural, "does not" should take the plural form. I also do not see the link between this sentence and the first sentence.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph of the Reactions section should be in another paragraph.
  • Most of the third paragraph of the Reactions section is unreferenced and might be original research.
  • I think that in "threats of arson, assault and even death", "death" should be changed to "murder".
  • "regretted the remarks he made as a "PR disaster"" sounds wrong. How about "After receiving threats of arson, assault and murder, Sing filed a police report. He said that he regretted the remarks he made, describing them as a "PR disaster"…"?
  • "Odex had hired some anime fans to do subtitling in 2004, who "took the easy way out and copied word for word the subtitles on fansubs they downloaded."": what goes directly before the comma is usually linked to the next clause. Try "in 2004, Odex had hired some anime fans to do subtitling, but the fans "took the easy way out and copied word for word the subtitles on fansubs they downloaded"". (Note that the full stop should go after the quotation mark.)
  • Consider shortening "with the explanation that" to simply "explaining that".
  • "Members of an online forum have expressed" should be in past tense, so remove "have".
  • How is "in which the latter revealed these figures in a news conference" linked to the first clause?
  • The flow of "it does not earn any profit from what it calls an 'enforcement process', intending to donating any excess amount to charity, and release a financial audit of all the money collected after all the proceedings" could be improved. I suggest you change "intending" to "as it intends" or change the comma to a semi-colon and "intending" to "it intends".
  • I suggest "in an attempt to address" be shortened to simply "to address"; I see no need to say it was an attempt.
  • I think that "cease and desist emails" are "sent", not "initiated".
  • Phrases like "found to be" are unnecessary. The simpler "was hacked" will do.
  • Another redundancy: "ruled in the ISP's favor that Pacific Internet did not have to reveal its subscribers' personal information". Remove either "in the ISP's favor" or "that Pacific Internet did not have to reveal its subscribers' personal information".
  • Change "the ISP StarHub" to simply "StarHub" as the context makes it clear that StarHub is an ISP (and it is already stated earlier).
  • Instead of placing a colon before the quote, try to integrate it into the sentence.
  • The citation after "release of subscriber information" should go after the comma.
  • The subject and verb in "copyright holders themselves, or its exclusive licensee" are not in agreement. Either "the copyright holder itself, or its exclusive licensee" or "copyright holders themselves, or their exclusive licensees" will work.
  • The comma after "Lau noted that" seems unnecessary.
  • Add a "to" between "allow Odex" and "add more affidavits".
  • Why mention three of the Japanese studios but not the fourth?
  • "ordered the company to pay Pacific Internet legal fees of S$20,000": should "Pacific Internet" take the possessive form?
  • The clause "in which currently no such laws exist" does not flow well from the first clause of the sentence.
  • "some of the downloaders who have settled": Consider removing "of the". Either remove "have" or change it to past tense.
  • "Odex, however, is a commercial entity as is the AVPAS which it is issuing the letters on behalf of and hence cannot enact legal action on the said law.": This sentence does not flow well. Try "However, Odex and AVPAS, which Odex is issuing the letters on behalf of, are commercial entities and hence cannot enact legal action based on the said law."
  • Awkward phrase: "never having been used".
  • Remove the hyphens from "man-on-the-street". The hyphens are only used when the word is used as an adjective.
  • Change "but rather prosecute" to something like "but to prosecute".
  • Another example of redundancy: "also sought help in the form of legal advice". Shorten it to "also sought legal advice".
  • I understand what you mean by "downloaders who decide to settle out-of-court with Odex affords no protection from lawsuits if initiated by another company within the anime industry", but it could be made clearer. How about something like "settling out-of-court with Odex does not afford downloaders protection from lawsuits initiated by other anime companies"?
  • General advice: avoid overusing brackets.
  • More general advice: avoid overusing the word "even".

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the feedback so far. I appreciate more inputs in the meantime. I'll get around with this again shortly once I sort out some items IRL. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delldot[edit]

Hi, I just got the barest start on this before going to bed, I'll pick back up when I can (I too am busy with RL). Apologies if there's repetition with other reviews, I didn't read them.

  1. More than a third subsequently settled out of court for at least S$3,000 (US$2,000) per person, the youngest defendant being only nine years old. does this mean that the nine-year-old was one of the third? I'd use of these in place of defendant in that case. If not, it's a non sequitur and I'd make it a separate sentence. Also, I'm not great at NPOV, but I'm not sure about the use of the word only there.
  2. the Singaporean anime community -- is there a Singaporean anime community, or is this something the article is coining?
  3. Is unrightful a word?
  4. I believe heavy-handed doesn't need the hyphen in this sentence (only when the two words come before the word they modify, or at least that's my reading of hyphen). Correct me if I'm wrong.
  5. Subsequently Odex revised some of its legal actions that included sending cease and desist emails to downloaders in Singapore, which in November 2007 unintentionally reached several Internet users worldwide. I'm told you should avoid use of some, a vague and redundant word. Also, Subsequently to what, the criticism? For some reason I think unintentionally reached several Internet users worldwide is awkward. Usually when the word unintentionally is used, there's an active subject, so you'd expect something more like "the company unintentionally leaked the info". Also, several? Really? I think of several as being less than ten or so.
  6. I don't know why Pacnet doesn't redirect to Pacific Internet if it's an alternate name, but either way, you only need to link one of the alternate names.
  7. its suit against Internet Service Provider Pacific Internet (now known as Pacnet) to reveal the information of 1,000 of its subscribers. I think you need something more, like to make the company reveal... to clarify that that's the purpose of the suit.

Going to bed, gimme a poke if I'm not back to finish in a few days. delldot talk 08:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just have time for a couple more:

  1. This comes despite the fact that all anime AnimeSuki host are not licensed by Odex nor any other American anime company. —NPOV problem? Also, this and the sentence before it go off on a tangent from the rest of the paragraph.
  2. The paragraph with the above sentence switches tense a lot.
  3. demanding a "compensation fee". The scare quotes makes it look like an NPOV problem. maybe demanding what it calls a "compensation fee", though I'm not sure that fixes it.
  4. The recipient of such a letter has to contact Odex and settle the compensation fee settlement within the week, which ranged from S$3,000 to S$5,000. Failure to pay would result in Odex taking legal action against the alleged downloader. Once again, tense switching--three tenses here. Also, these sentences are kind of awkward.
  5. The company had been speculated to collect approximately S$15 million from 3,000 individuals in out-of-court settlements, but Odex refutes that it did not require all downloaders to pay S$5,000. --This is confusing. it "refutes that it did not"? Or it refutes that it did? Or is there some punctuation missing? Also, this and the three previous sentences don't really fit together; they're non sequiturs.
  6. Later, the company's director Peter Go revealed that most of the compensation fees went into covering up the costs went to paying ISPs,[26] and BayTSP --unclear.

Sorry, bedtime again. More to follow! delldot talk 09:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've actually been repeating a lot of what's been said above. How about this: why don't you deal with the issues brought up so far and I'll read the article afterwards? Even better would be if you could get someone who owes you a favor to give it a copyedit. That way the newer version can get a review too. Gimme a poke on my talk page when you're ready. delldot talk 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Odex%27s_actions_against_file-sharing/archive2&oldid=1084305410"