Template:Did you know nominations/Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.
Appearance
- 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)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.
- ... that the court case Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. helped allow the game rental market to thrive for the years that followed the case? Source: https://www.gamesradar.com/lawsuits-changed-gaming/
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.
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)
- 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)