Talk:Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc./GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Good news, I also don't usually get to these on time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Here we go! You've had my review schpiel before but basically, I'm open to discussion on all suggestions, and I won't fail on a single point unless something would cause a fail of the GACR.

Lead & Background

• "Although the courts granted a enjoined the Game Genie from being sold" I think you're missing something here
• "extending with new versions" feels awkward. Maybe something like, "and the product line was extended with versions for other consoles"?
• Can we get years for the other suits mentioned?
• "this case was distinguished by courts" is distinguished used as legal jargon here? Otherwise it doesn't seem to fit.
• Year for Treasure Island as well?
• I think the single-sentence paragraph at the end of Background could be part of the previous paragraph, but I won't fight you on it

Legal dispute

• Years for other suits again plz, for the next section too
• "The dispute was not resolved until a trial." I think this can just be "until trial". Or maybe just add "and the dispute proceeded to trial." to the end of the previous sentence
• "personal use, Nintendo" this needs a semi-colon, not a comma
• The trial is described as lasting "over a year" but later it says they were prohibited from selling for an "approximately one-year period". Can the earlier wording be tweaked for consistencey? Trial was July 90 to July 91, so I think "approximately a year" is more accurate than "over a year"

Impact and legacy

• I think we need a smidge of context for ReplayTV - maybe "DVR service ReplayTV"?
• "The issue was raised again..." when?

Overall, a very solid article with minimal issues. Sourcing good, no concern about POV or CV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review. The comments were all helpful and they should now be resolved after my edits. Jorahm (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Aaaa sorry I forgot to come back and close this out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.