Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.

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 BorgQueen (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.

(

)

... that the case Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. is considered essential to the future of video game modding in the United States? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=39nKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT19#v=onepage&q&f=false
- ALT1: ... that the case Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. is cited in the case Sega v. Accolade? Source: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1814&context=facpub
- ALT2: ... that after a decision was made in favor of Galoob in the case Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., video game modding became more widespread? Source: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2915&context=lawreview Pages 235-239
- ALT3: ... that video game modding became more widespread after the ruling in Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KTAR (AM)

Improved to Good Article status by Jorahm (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Main blurb is potentially misleading by implying that the case is still essential while the source only says that it was essential at the time of the decision. In fact, a law journal article cited later in the paragraph casts doubt on its applicability to how mods are distributed today. I have changed the text in the article [1], but the blurb should be edited or a source proving that it is still essential today should be provided. ALT1 is not interesting enough without something more (cases cite each other all the time). ALT2 is okay, but I've proposed an ALT3 that's more concise. However, since the main blurb is the most interesting, a minor reword there (e.g. adding "in 1992") is probably preferable to ALT2/3. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Patar knight: How about ALT4: ... that the case Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. was considered essential to the future of video game modding in the United States in 1992? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. ALT4 is supported by the source and is the most interesting. Thank you for your work. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)