# Talk:Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC

All sentences in this article are my own work and properly cited to the relevant authority.
RE: Possible copyright violation -- this is an article that cites to a federal court opinion which are not copyrightable. Since they are not copyrightable, even if there are no citations to their source without quotation, it is not infringement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works Bundaberger (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that the copyright question is resolved (and I apologise for having been wrong about that), would someone like to address the WP:plagiarism in this article? Substantial chunks of it are copied directly from the court report, as this Duplicate Detector report shows. The curious statement above about "sentences in this article are my own work' is not only superfluous (all editors should contribute only their own work here, right?), but a good way short of the truth. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Response: The copyright detector doesn't take into account the quotations surrounding text in the article. As a result, what shows up as copied in the detector is properly cited and quoted in the body of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.21.118 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 

I'm not familiar enough with the GA process to try reviewing this article myself, but there's a matter of particular concern with it that likely merits it being failed. The meat of this article is almost completely cited to the various cases rather than secondary sources. As good as the discussion of the case may be—and it is well-written—Wikipedia is not the place to publish a case comment. If there are case comments on this case in any law reviews or bar journals, then we should be sourcing to them. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lixxx235 (talk · contribs) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Planing to review, "claiming". Thanks, and cheers, Lixxx235-Talk 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


### TheQ Editor's Comment
Hey, just stopping by after I clicked the wrong link on my watchlist. Here's some problems on first glance. 

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”.
That's basically it. Those are some major problems on first glance. Cheers, TheQ Editor  (Talk) 23:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


### Reviewer's comment
Pass. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 17:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)