Jump to content

Talk:Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sitting here for way too long, so despite my relative lack of experience with law articles, I'm going to give it a go.

  • I pulled up a couple of your GA case articles (Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. and Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.) for comparison, and there's an inconsistency in the first sentence that I'm not sure which way it should go: right now you have N v. B was a 1989 legal case, but in Lewis Galloob (but not Midway) articles you have "is a 1992 legal case". Which one should it be?
  • "this estimation raising to 20 million in consideration of the post-Christmas season." - oddly passive voice; consider "this estimate rose to 20 million in the post-Christmas season."
  • Link Compute!
  • "almost as many as the number of Commodore 64s sold in its first five years." - perhaps "almost as many consoles as the 1982 Commodore 64 sold in its first five years.", to avoid the "almost as many as the number" and also give context for how recent the C64 was
  • "revenue in 1989 was over $600 million cementing the brand" - comma after million, and {{US$}} for the dollar, since Nintendo is a non-US company so we should be clear this is all US dollars
  • A little odd that you're comparing Blockbuster's revenue to WCV's profit; I see in the source they're actually saying it's 180 million in revenue, which makes more sense for the comparison
  • "the Software Publishers Association promised to exclude video games from the new copyright protections" - I feel that you need to be a little more specific here; "video games", in modern parlance, include software-only games and computer games, so even if that's the term the SPA used you should specify that they were excluding cartridge-based or console games, not "video games" that could include floppy disk-based computer games.
  • You're inconsistent on the punctuation of the Video Software Dealers Association - the link is to "Dealers", but you have both "Dealer's" and "Dealers'" in the text. It doesn't appear to have used an apostrophe in the name at all.
  • "the bill passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee without protection for Nintendo's cartridges." - should maybe make it clear that it didn't have protection for non-Nintendo cartridges (Sega, etc.), even though this article is about Nintendo specifically
  • "requesting that Blockbuster cease photocopying and reproducing Nintendo's copyrighted video game manuals" - this is the first time (outside of the lead) that you mention that Blockbuster did this at all, so it should either get mentioned in the "facts" section that BB's rentals included copies of the manual, or this sentence should append that BB was including these manuals with the rentals.
  • "this followed with a formal lawsuit" - "this was followed by a formal lawsuit"
  • "The finally chose the latter option" - "They", but also, do you know when "finally" refers to? I'm guessing before whenever that VSDA convention was?
  • "rental of computer software without limiting the rental of video games." - same as above, "rental of video game cartridges".
  • "a similar model would be reasonable for games," - needs to be more clear that this is Sheff's opinion, not Wikipedia's authoritative voice, e.g. "he held that a similar model would be reasonable for games,"
  • "Blockbuster earned over $200 million in revenue from video game rentals." - annual revenue? Or cumulative?
  • "with Blockbuster filing for bankruptcy in 2010." - passive voice; "and Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy in 2010."
  • Link Xbox One
  • Refs 7 and 8 are to the same book (different page numbers), but have different formatting. Also, you have "pp. Prologue", but unless that's the name of a page it should be "ch. Prologue", e.g. "|chapter=Prologue"
  • Refs 14, 25, 27, 28 has a different date format than the rest
  • Ref 23 claims the author is "Ariz Tucson", but that's the name of the city that the AP newswire was filed in, not the author. Also, don't allcaps the AP NEWS
  • You link the book in ref 1, so you should link Game Over in ref 10
  • Don't link to google books (or other non-related commercial services) in ref 28
That's it! --PresN 01:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and I believe that I have finished everything. I am not familiar with the US$ template so I would appreciate any help with that if I am not using it correctly. Jorahm (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; made a minor tweak and promoting. --PresN 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following 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 Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Jorahm (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Passes on all requirements: length plenty good, sourcing throughout article, no readily apparent copyright issues (Earwig is currently down, so no full report), new GA promotion, and hook is both sourced inline and accurate to source. I don't know the reliability of GamesRadar, but considering that it was sufficient to allow for the GA I'm confident that it's fine. Nice job to improver and nominator. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming the hook for an admin who may promote to a queue, I see this in our article to support the hook "The video game rental market continued to grow, and by 2008, Blockbuster was earning over $200 million in annual revenue from video game rentals" I removed the first part of the hook since the info is in the Southwestern Law Review as seen here and in our article. So I think it can be stated in our hook without a qualifier. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nintendo_of_America,_Inc._v._Blockbuster_Entertainment_Corp.&oldid=1204189194"