Template:Did you know nominations/Associated Press v. Meltwater
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Associated Press v. Meltwater
edit
... that in the United States, commercial news clipping is not protected by fair use doctrine in a particular situation (court seal pictured)?
Created by Sydatischool (talk). Nominated by MasanoriSasaki (talk) at 06:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
- New enough, long enough, and decent quality (has some passive voice issues though). Image is good too as PD. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what the hook means. I think this needs to be more descriptive and more clearly backed up/sourced in the article. The phrase "particular situation" is not used in the article at all, and it's unclear which the relevant sections of the article would be. I've struck the hook; please supply an ALT hook in its place. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: 2nd para under "Decision" needs a proper inline cite in place of the inline external link.
- This is my proposal for an ALT1, no apologies for the deliberate pun, excluding the image which seems to "trip up" the original hook:
- ALT1: ... that after the court case was decided against them, Meltwater broke the ice with Associated Press and agreed to work together on product development? Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 20:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
ALT1 hook needs reviewing, plus anything else. (Original review didn't mention checking for close paraphrasing, for example.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- The inline citation mentioned above has been corrected. This article is confirmed to have been new enough and is long enough, and it utilizes appropriate sources which are internally cited within the text. There are no copyvios in the checked sources, and the hook's content is sourced and verifiable. A QPQ has also been completed. -- Caponer (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
