Talk:Concurrent use registration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concurrent use registration article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Concurrent use registration has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 17, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Successful GA nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

Comment: Every effort should be made to simplify language in technical articles such as this. Consider greater use of point form and headings to break up blocks of text and increase reader understanding.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Comment: A difficult subject to find images for. An example of trademarks, for instance the Holiday Inn trademarks referred to in the text, may be appropiate.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.--Michael Johnson (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I will continue to work on the points you have raised. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of minor points. First, some of the sections are very verbose, and seem very technical. I think the information is here, but it might help to try and paraphrase better, and rewrite the language a little bit more in easier to understand terms. The {{cquote}} template also seems to be somewhat overused as well, and some of the quotes might be able to be paraphrased and cited instead of quoted. The purpose here is to write an encyclopedia article defining this particular legal issue, using terms that are best understood by laypeople. It's not necessary to repeat the exact laws and republish information from legal books; readers can go there if they want more details. Rather, summarize the information here, and define the topic of 'concurrent use registration'.

Other than that, this article looks very good. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)