Talk:Sega Genesis

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on March 2, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Epass (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who put up the GA nomination, and I'd like to let everyone know that I am challenging all of that unsourced information labeled by {{fact}} tags and will remove it. If you can find the citations or wish to debate some of it, then say so here, and please don't go aimlessly reverting the article because you think I'm vandalizing it. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work so far. The only comment I have (from a quick scan through) is that the two GameFAQS citations should be replaced with different ones, as they are not reliable sources, with one being a user-submitted review, and the other being a user-submitted FAQ. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I had not noticed the GameFAQs sources in that list. Yes, they should be removed. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to renominate it for GA status in the next couple of days. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd hold off on it until all of the Refs have proper Citewebs on them, because it will pointed out during FA assessment. Not sure if it can be failed for it but it would be better to go in there with as few obvious flaws as is possible. - X201 (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed some occurrences of Genesis to Mega Drive in the article purely because I know FA will pick up on the fact that Mega Drives and Genesis were used as interchangeable words for the same item. I've left Genesis intact in the North American section and in places where it was the NA version of the console that was specifically being talked about. This isn't some kind of dastardly plot to deprive North America of it's Genesis and to say it never existed, I'm just trying to make the FA process as smooth as possible. - X201 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Redphoenix is actually talking about Good Article, but still, your changes certainly improve the article, and I agree also with your reasoning. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking Good Article, which is why I said GA. But I like your thinking anyway, X201, and maybe we should nominate it for FA in a little while. In the mean time, any votes for relisting for GA status? Redphoenix526 (Talk) 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think the two GameFAQs references may well need replacing with better sources. But other than that, I'm no expert on GA/FA criteria, so it's probably best to get X201's opinion on that. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted out some of the web citations, but I've also noticed a lot of statements unsourced. See also Web link checker which reveals a few problem links. Overall the article is pretty well written, but there are some areas with stubby paras. All these issues, and more, will be picked up in any GA/FA nomination. I suggest a peer review before considering a GA nomination. -- Nreive (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This article has been nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page.

The guys at WP:GAR recommended we relist at WP:GAN and renominate the article entirely, so I'm going to do that now. I think the article is cleaned up enough now. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it'll reach GA without those spec tables being turned into prose first. But it's worth a try. Crimsonfox (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will either, but that's what the guys at WP:GAR said to do, relist it. I didn't send it in to WP:GAR, but it sounds like they think it should be relisted. Guess we'll see what happens, and chances are if it's a table, we'll be put on hold to fix it really quick. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 03:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very least we'll get an indication of the sections of the article that need attention. - X201 (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true, so we're getting help one way or another. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did ask a while back for someone with more knowledge of the technical side of things to read over the prose I wrote up to check that if it mzde sense or not. Took me freakin' ages to write all that up and trying to actually understand it all while I was doing it. It's a shame really cause it's only the memory and I/O section that needs be to finished really. I left the tables there before just in case someone wanted to add anything from them before we got rid of them. Crimsonfox (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here. I'll finish it now and get rid of the tables. Of course, it can always be reverted if it doesn't work. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 23:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished it, but I think it needs a little copyediting. This is the first time I've ever converted a tech table into prose, so I don't think my English is perfected with it yet (funny, I'm a native speaker). Redphoenix526 (Talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job!. The only thing I'm certain we'll get pulled up on is words like "playfield". I've got a pretty good idea what it means but a non-techy person will trip over it. any objections to changing words like playfield to "screen" or "backgrounds" ? - X201 (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

None at all. This is what I meant by copyediting, stuff like this needs tweaked. I still think it will pass the good article nomination, but every little bit helps. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The discussion was closed in preparation for renomination at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Please see the archived discussion for further information. PeterSymonds | talk 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Sega console sold outside of Japan?

That's not true. The Sega SG-1000 was not sold in North America, but it was in Oceania and some european countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.108.46 (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have enough sources?

I'm afraid some of the sections might not be well sourced enough, especially in the technical specifications area. We might get nailed for original research on that, even if it's really not. Red Phoenix (Talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I have reviewed your article and after checking all of your references, many of them appear to be unreliable. However, after checking some of the other console articles (namely the Super Nintendo Entertainment System), I have discovered some of their references appear questionable as well. Of the references I found that stuck out to me, these include 2, 3, 4, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 32, 33, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 56.

 Done Among these are sites from angelfire, gamefaq guides,

• I've already trashed these two sources and replaced/cut the information sourced by them. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

and other unverifiable/unreliable sites.

 Done Also, I found refs 12 and 24 to be broken.

• Also trashed/replaced these sources. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I am unsure of the reliability of these references, I am requesting a 2nd opinion from others regarding the reliability of the above references in question. In the meantime, I recommend searching for more reliable sources. Here are some other issues to consider in the meantime:

•  Done Try to integrate the lone sentence in the lead into one of the other paragraphs.

•  Done In Launch -> NA, "making it the second console to feature a 16-bit CPU (the first one being the Mattel Intellivision) and the first to feature single-instruction 32-bit arithmetic" - This needs to be cited.

• That statement was in the wrong place anyway and looked to be original research, so I cut it. Red Phoenix (Talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done In Launch -> Europe, try to consolidate the marketing details into a single paragraph.

•  Done In Launch -> Brazil, consolidate all of the sentences into one paragraph.

•  Done In Console wars, "However, after the release of the PC-Engine CD add-on and the Nintendo Super Famicom, the Mega Drive soon lost ground in the US market." - this needs to be cited.

•  Done In Console wars, "One of Sega's most famous advertisements in North American media was its slogan "Genesis does what Nintendon't",[29] [15] which showcased the graphics advantage that the Genesis held against the aging NES." - this statement is awkward by itself. Try to integrate it into the rest of the article.

•  Done In 32-bit era and beyond, the first paragraph needs to be cited.
•  Done In 32-bit era and beyond, "In the UK the last stocks of the Mega Drive II were sold by the end of 1999." Needs to be cited.

• Removed instead, possible original research. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done In 32-bit era and beyond, "the successful and long-lived Sega Master System" - Reword to sound less peacock-like.

•  Done In Emulation, the first two sentences should be cited.

• Seemed more like original research, so I just cut it. Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done This section also needs more references overall,

•  Done some parts lack any at all (e.g. "During his keynote speech at the 2006 Game Developers Conference...").

•  Done Master system compatibility
•  Done Peripherals
•  Done Variations
•  Done tech specs could use all use more references. Some parts of these sections are largely uncited.

•  Done Right now, modifications is mostly independent research, references are needed here or the section needs to go entirely.

Thank you for your patience. -- Noj r (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If the sites are unreliable, they must be replaced with reliable sites of the article can't get GA I think. Epass (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, after speaking to some other editors, I feel it would alright to put this on hold for a week to address the issues. Continue to implement the fixes noted above and try to find reliable sources for your statements. I also noted someone went through and layed some fact tags down. Since they were put there before the review I will ignore them, but I recommend finding references for them. I will check this page regularly for changes, just message here when you feel you are done. Good Luck -- Noj r (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess someone layed the fact tags down to give us a guide of what needs citations as per your suggestions. We'll get right on them. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It was me. I was a bit quick out of the blocks this morning. - X201 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the checklist has been finished. While I haven't seen every reference personally, we have rid ourselves of the most unreliable sources: angelfire and GameFAQs, trashed the broken links, and cited more that was not cited previously. It might be done at this point, but I want to let X201 read over it first and tell me what he thinks before I can call it ready to be looked at again. Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fair, I do recommend checking all of the references for notability though. I will re-read the article again sometime soon (probably tomorrow) to see if any additional issues need addressing. Its looking better so far. -- Noj r (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Im going to have to fail this article. The article has more inline citations, but that is not the problem. The problem is the lack of research performed when writing this article. After going through most of the references again I have compiled the following list to give editors an idea of the issues I have:

• [2] and [3] are completely unreliable. No authors, publishing info, post dates, copyright information.

 Done*[4] is GameHall, not mega-drive.net, mark that language is in spanish.

 Done*[9] should have Gamespot cited as the publisher because it is the owner.

• it's IGN, not Gamespot.

 Done*[10] should have the author cited, I looked, its right there.

• [11] has no accessdate, no issue number, and no page numbers. It needs these.
• [12] is questionable. Author? Publishing info? Post date? What makes this site reliable anyway?
• [14] is written by Greg Gillis. But who is he?! Why is he notable? Why is this site reliable?
• [15] and [16] are missing publisher info. These books also appear to be experts on the subject, so why are they not used more?
• [17] is plain unreliable. No author, no publishing information, no copyrights. Actually there is nothing suggesting reliability on this site.
• [19] has no copyright information, authors, or anything. Why is it reliable anyway?

 Done*[20] says the author is Damo, so why is Damien McFerran cited as the author?!

It says Damo on the article page but the full name (Damien "Damo" McFerran) on their About Us page.

• [22] has no author, post date, publisher. Please use a template. Look at [26] for a good example of proper referencing!
• [23] same as 23.
• [24] same as 23.
• [29] needs an accessdate.
• [30] How is gameConsole.com reliable? It isnt. There is no copyright, no authors, etc.
• [32] needs to be cited using a ref template.
• [34] needs a publisher or a company.
• [35] should have GamesDog for publisher and not the site link.
• [36] same as 35. Cite gamespot not uk.gamespot.com
• [37] use a ref template plz.
• [38] accessdate?
• [39] same as 35.
• [40] Why is this site reliable?
• [41] same as 35.
• [44] is unreliable. No copyright info or anything!
• [46] is unverifiable. Why is this site reliable?!

I stopped after 46. Obviously you understand where I am coming from. The ref section needs to be weeded out and entirely rewritten. Reliable references are needed, and they need to be cited correctly. I probably should have quick failed the article initially, but I felt that a week might be enough time to find reliable references. However, since no significant changes have occurred within the reference section in the past 4 days, there is no way this article could be re-referenced in time and still pass. If you feel this review was unfair in any way, please feel free to have it reassessed. -- Noj r (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A few comments on the above list:

• [1] Last sentence, last paragraph.
• [4] Portuguese, not Spanish. .br is a good tipoff.
• [11] If someone can fill in the rest of [1]this template: {{cite magazine |last=Szczepaniak |first=John |year=2006 |month=July? |title=Retroinspection: Sega Mega Drive |journal=[[Retro Gamer]] |issue=27 |pages=??–?? |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |location=??? |url=http://www.sega-16.com/Retroinspection-%20Mega%20Drive.php |accessdate=2007-11-08}}
• [16], and maybe [15] (is that from Game Over?), can copy the needed info from SNES#References.
• [49] Not exactly a wiki, but it's about the same thing. Anyone can post anything there.
• [59] Ditto.

Anomie⚔ 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than the fact that I'd call your thinking that WP:SNOW could be applied to three days to weed out reference problems kind of harsh, I'd say fair enough. Red Phoenix (Talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)