Wikipedia:Featured article review/Copyright

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Copyright

Article is no longer a featured article

This article does not warrant featured status due to the relatively poor quality of much of the content, and the over representation of critique at the expense of content addressing fundamental aspects of copyright. The simplest way to illustrate the weakness of the article is to invite comparison with the patent and trademark articles. The article in its current form simply does not compete at featured article level. 203.198.237.30 12:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was its form when it was a featured article.

Remove. No references. Even if others disagree, I'll continue to believe references are important enough. It's also been long enough. - Taxman 17:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The "Further Reading" section has references, it appears. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What would lead you to believe that that is true? "Further reading" could just as well mean that those are a list of works made available for the interested reader, but never even seen by the page authors. Further, I made a request over a month ago to clarify that very problem, and there was no response. So instead it would appear they are not valid references. - Taxman 13:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Remove — mark ✎ 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. The "as of 1911" reference still hasn't been cleaned up by fact-checking to see whether or not the related information is still true. -- Beland 01:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Neutrality^talk 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Remove. Deeply, deeply,flawed; more a hit-and-miss set of discussions relating to the subject than a coherent exploration of it. Monicasdude 01:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)