Talk:Sega Saturn

Marketing Techniques

Should that section be merged into the market performance sections? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sales

I've discovered a book source, written by David S. Evans and published by MIT Press, that states the Saturn sold 17 million units. While this is much higher than the 9.5 million figure given by the GamePro article, the GamePro article did not give any references to back up its figure, whereas Evans has referenced shis 17 million figure to a market research article published by In-Stat published in December 2000 giving figures for Sega/Nintendo/Sony console shipments from 1989 onwards. I've tracked down the original In-Stat source, both on its own site as well as MarketResearch.com (see here), but the price tag to view the article is nearly $2500! In other words, I can only assume that since the Evans source is a reliable source published by the MIT Press, its 17 million figure is accurately sourced to that market research article. Jagged 85 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• That seems a solid source, and I certainly have no problem with using it. Doing a little more digging, the only place I found the 9.5 million figure in a late 1990s source was an article in a magazine called Brandweek that claimed the figure but did not say where it came from. The last official number I see from Sega is a 7 million figure from the end of 1996 in a press release already sourced in this article. It seems a litle odd that Sega managed to sell an additional 10 million units of a the console in just over a year during a time of platform decline, but who knows. Indrian (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little curious myself, but that market resarch paper is far too expensive to access, hence why I just went with a second-hand book source referencing it. If I had to guess, I would say that it's because the 7 million figure for the end of 1996 was referring to the installed base rather than total sales (which may have been higher than 7 million at the time), and that most of the additional sales after that came from Japan (as well as Asia and to a lesser extent Europe), since the Saturn was apparently increasing in popularity during that time in Japan just as the console was declining in the West (though not sure if that's enough to nearly double the sales). Jagged 85 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We've dealt with this 17 million number before. It just makes no sense and doesn't fit in with any known existing data. 2 million is the final number sold in the US, and at only 7 million a year before it's discontinued, I see it as impossible and conflicting with much stronger sales sources.--SexyKick 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go. "Close to six million"--SexyKick 01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, 1998 - 8.2 million--SexyKick 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it seems greatly out of step with other numbers. Looking at the source Jagged presented more closely, its hard to tell what is actually taken from the study. The only footnote appears at the end of the paragraph and specifically after the sentence stating that Sony never dropped below 33% market share. It could be the study was used for the entire paragraph, or it could be for just that sentence. I agree as stated above that the idea it sold an additional ten million units in such a short time when on decline everywhere, even Japan by that point, seems strange. I do not know that the sources you provided help much though. I don't think the first one has any more or less indicia of reliability than Jagged's source. The second one was not showing me any Saturn sales, so maybe the link is bad? As I stated above, there is an article in a magazine called Brandweek that gives a 9.5 million figure in early 1998 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BDW/is_n9_v39/ai_20352855/) Indrian (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You basically have to redo the search to get the clip quote. That's a good article you posted yourself though.--SexyKick 04:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Just found something else fun. A screen digest chart (you may remember them from the Master System debate) that shows sales of next-gen consoles in Western Europe between 1995 and 1997. This shows that the system sold 971,000 units in Western Europe during that time period and that sales peaked in 1996. I doubt 1998 figures added much to that. It probably sold less than 1.5 million units in Europe, which makes since because there are a few other places where sales have to be accounted for too like Brazil. This 17 million number is looking more suspect all the time. Indrian (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sega Saturn Pluto prototype

Sega Saturn with Netlink inside

File:Saturn with netlink backside.jpg I think it's name is Sega Pluto prototype, it has a netlink installed inside it. It should be in the main article. renegadeviking

Sales Figure Source

http://www.giantbomb.com/saturn/3045-42/

I cannot get the source edit page to work on my PC. The old sales figure was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.69.16 (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That source is of no use anyway. First of all, the only thing it says about the Saturn's sales figure is "Estimates for the Saturn's worldwide sales range from 9.5 million units to 17 million units." Second, and more important, the page is free-to-edit, so it can't be used as a source anywhere in Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sales mismatch for U.S. figures.

Someone should look over this. The Saturn box on the right has 1.83 million for North America, but there is a link in the first paragraph of the article stating 2 million. Nevermind, seems there is a user changing the numbers. KombatPolice (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Clean Up Completed

There were lots of areas that needed fixing. I did not get all of them but there were numerous instances of un-cited claims being made as fact, information not being in the references provided, unreliable sources, and comparisons when one side is cited and one side is not. Let's find more sources to expand this article and make sure the information is 100% as accurate as we can make possible. John Mayor ERS (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jakandsig/John Mayor ERS/KombatPolice, can you please stop ruining this article with no reliable basis on improvement? IX|(C"<) 01:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying buddy but what was removed was un-sourced material, unreliable sources, info that is not in the source, and comparisons with no cites. That latter one was actually probably made by a person who does not like the Dreamcast. Pitting cited Playstations sales against un-cited Dreamcast sales. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope anyone interested in improving this article would find reliable sources for everything John Mayor ERS removed. IX|(C"<) 02:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am actually going to wait for anyone who can first. If no one comes forth for awhile then I may later remove those sections again since there are a lot of issues with the article containing un-cited and false material. As well as bias for and against the system. I like the Sega Saturn, but let's not go crazy. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll actually do it tomorrow. People who read this please be sure to check the references that I originally removed. Otherwise the bad information is way to one sided against and for the Saturn to leave on the page. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever pinged me on my talk page and requested I take a look at this article. This is an article on my list of upcoming projects I have planned for sure, but it's a little behind my current active FA, FL, and GA candidates (Sega 32X, Sega CD, List of Sega Genesis games, SG-1000), and I was also looking at doing Master System soon, too. I would actually like to start with a similar approach and suggest stripping the article out when it's ready for construction. As I can see it, a total overhaul is necessary, and that would include changing the format, removing unsourced information and WP:TRIVIA, and aligning a proper focus with the four key sections of a console article: History (including development, release, decline, etc.), Technical specifications, Game Library, and Reception (includes legacy), as well as any subsections warranted by coverage in reliable sources. A team, including myself, did so on Sega Genesis this year with amazing results, creating a FA and laying the groundwork for a Genesis WP:FT, which I'm working hard on completing. On a side note, I would encourage that nobody panic; I think the message I received was one of desperation in a sense. The truth is, nothing will happen overnight here. This will be a project to change over, and I appreciate users who are willing to be bold and stand up to correct the issues, and I would be willing to work with any editor willing to do so once I'm done with my current active projects. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good work Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever for getting him on board, as you can see ^{let's talk...}, I have performed a most through sweep of the article. There was some material I did not delete, change, or alter since we may have to discuss some of these references at length. I will be waiting for your suggestions on what we should add to the page to make it more accurate, I have mostly just been cleaning up articles for now. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "sweep" of the article was not a proper one, because you removed the "unsourced" information again. IX|(C"<) 03:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Principles of reformatting

It'll be a little bit yet before I can really get my hands dirty with this article. That being said, a total restructure is definitely in order. The four key sections of any console-based article should always be as follows:

• History:
  • 1. Background info (i.e. company's previous establishment, past ventures, decisions leading to new console, etc.)
    2. Development
    3. Launch (release information, marketing)
    4. Relevant events during the console (release of a legit killer app, legal issues, paradigm marketing shifts, etc.)
    5. Decline (and eventual succession)
• Technical specifications:
  • 1. Hardware details (processors and internal specs, ports, input/output, etc.)
    2. Peripherals
    3. Models (sometimes can work in History if a major redesign)
    4. Network services
• Game library:
  • 1. Overview of game library, listing of a few select titles.
    2. Criticisms over the library as a whole.
    3. Traits and issues common to games across the library.
• Reception:
  • 1. Critical period and retrospective reviews of console
    2. Impacts on company, market as a whole, etc.
    3. Relevant later impact (new development, revival of titles, etc.)

Some subsections may be warranted if topics are large enough (Genesis, for instance, had enough to be said about Add-ons and Variations to warrant two full sections entirely. I can see taking this article in that direction as well, and the following current sections would follow into these four categories: History - Development, some of Architecture, Performance in the Marketplace, Marketing techniques Tech specs - Some of Architecture, Saturn models (needs some reduction), Technical specifications, Compatibility, Accessories Library - Needs to be created Reception - Needs to be created

Proper research and reworking will fix a lot of things wrong with this article. I can't promise I'd honestly keep everything because not everything is relevant, source able, and important to understanding the console, but I do promise there's enough information out there to make a decent article out of this. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sega Saturn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I'll take a look at this for you Red, though I probably will not get to it until tomorrow.

Oh Indrian, you caught me by surprise that you picked up this review so quickly. I'm honored, and I'll be glad to wait. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

So I think the best way to do this is to take two separate passes at the article. Before I get to the heart of the GA criteria, there are several accuracy concerns that need to be addressed. I specifically wanted to review this article because there is some bad misinformation and speculation taken as fact that has crept into the few reliable sources on the topic and I was afraid that a less well-versed reviewer might pass this along on the GA criteria without delving deeper into these factual issues. Once these issues have been addressed to my satisfaction, I will do a second evaluation that addresses issues of structure, coverage, image and reference formatting, etc. With that in mind, here are my first round of comments:

 Done *Original designs for the Saturn began in the early 1990s at Sega of Japan's research and development department, as "GigaDrive" The GigaDrive name comes up sometimes as a code name for what became the Saturn, but this appears to be just rumor and speculation rather than verifiable fact. The GigaDrive name apparently first appeared in EGM #15 in October 1990. This is well before the Saturn was in development, as an interview with a Sega product manager in June 1994 reveals that the system had been in development just over two years at that point (and that specifically includes the conception stage). Looking at the text of that original EGM article, the news about GigaDrive is merely part of their rumor section and even the author himself is not particularly convinced by what he has heard. The common belief today is that this "Gigadrive" project was probably actually the Sega CD. As for the name, it continues to appear sporadically for a couple of years, but there is no proof it was actually an official code name for anything. It would be okay to include the Gigadrive name in the article, but you would need to say something like "rumors of a 32-bit Sega console first surfaced in 1990, when EGM reported that a new system code-named 'Gigadrive' was in development. While this name has never been publicly confirmed by Sega, the system did eventually acquire the code name 'Saturn.'

• • Retro Gamer hedges their bets here by saying "early 1990s" as well. You don't happen to have access to this article with EGM, do you? It would be an interesting read. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • This forum post quotes the material in EGM 15 and 16. I do not have access to 15, but I can confirm the poster quotes 16 accurately. Long story short, GigaDrive does not appear to have ever been a name for the Saturn and may not have been the name of anything at all. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Check me, I think I've got this weeded out. Phew, the tough part about accuracy in these circumstances is that it's tricky to weed out what is and what isn't the actual, synthesized truth. It's taking me a little while to get through all of these; I'm actively working them out one at a time. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        • There is still a problem here. The GigaDrive name appears to have been invented by the press. It would be better to first state that rumors first circulated about a new 32-bit console in 1990 that the gaming press labelled GigaDrive, then go with the quote from the Sega employee that indicates that development actually started in 1992. Then we can say the project acquired the internal codename Saturn, which ended up being the final name. These are all facts backed in sources and sidesteps the issue of whether it was actually named GigaDrive by Sega without ignoring the name entirely. To do it any other way risks spreading GigaDrive as an official Sega codename when it may not be true. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
          • I mentioned EGM here specifically since that's the earliest occurrence we have, and I removed the future release dating of GigaDrive as that's more than likely speculation. Hopefully that fixes it. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't have time to go in-depth on this right now, but since I believe I may not have made my original objection completely clear, I did want to pop on for a second to further explain. Rumors of a new console began circulating in 1990, but there is no evidence that Sega was actually working on anything at that time. For all we know, these rumors could have started because of the Mega CD project, which was not publicly announced yet, they could have started because some arcade hardware was mistaken for consumer hardware, they could have just started because someone was bored one day. The only concrete info we have is that the Saturn project was in development for "over two years" as of June 1994. This implies a start date no later than early 1992. Its okay to say that rumors of a new console began circulating in 1990. It is not okay to say that Sega actually started to develop a console in 1990. There are no good sources to support that claim. Indrian (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
              • No, it wasn't clear. I feel like we've been beating around the bush this whole time. It would have been simpler to say, "Your source is wrong. Get rid of it." Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
                • Reliable source removal by fiat? That is the exact wrong way to do it. Its also disingenuous to claim that if I said that without any proof that you would have not argued against it. Also, I clearly stated in previous posts that "the GigaDrive name appears to have been invented by the press" and that "GigaDrive may not have been a code name for anything at all" and yet the name continued to appear in the article as an official code name for a 32-bit system. I also stated in the very first comment that most observers believe the GigaDrive rumor started because of the development of the Sega CD rather than a 32-bit system, and followed that up by suggesting we mention a 32-bit system was rumored to be in development in 1990, but that there was no actual development until 1992. Beating around the bush? Hardly.

The reason I did not tell you to "get rid of it" is because I wanted to leave it up to you whether mentioning the GigaDrive rumor was worthwhile to the article. There is nothing wrong with saying that a 32-bit system was rumored in 1990; the only problem is treating that rumor as fact. I even gave suggestions on how that could work. I think it's only fair to let the nominator decide what he thinks is best so long as accuracy is maintained in the final results. Finally, if you are going to be so sensitive about criticism regarding your editing, you should avoid being overly critical of another editor's reviewing. We are all on the same side here. Indrian (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Responding to the PlayStation announcement, Sega redesigned the GigaDrive into the Saturn So this gets messy in a hurry, and there are probably not any good reliable sources to sort it out perfectly. It does not appear that the Saturn was redesigned so much as enhanced by cramming more chips and more RAM in. This would explain why the board layout is so haphazard and why certain features were not well documented at launch and not used by early games. There would have been no time to redesign the system and still hit the launch date.

According to specs published in Edge Magazine, the system was originally going to be powered by an SH1. This would make sense, because an SH1 is included as a CD-ROM controller on the final system, which is really overkill for that function. These were rumored specs though, not from Sega itself, so they cannot be certain. Even if the SH2 was planned from the start, it probably had just a single SH2 and a single VDP. There is a fairly elaborate discussion about this here that includes some interesting technical information and includes scans and quotes from relevant magazine articles (be sure to click on some of Koolkitty's links to previous discussions). The forum stuff is not a reliable source, of course, but the magazines they reference are useful for attempting to straighten this out. We will not be able to come up with a perfect solution, but some of this material needs to be taken into account.

• Actually, yes, Retro Gamer mentions GigaDrive as a single-CPU system, and yes, I know it's not made clear in the article (something I missed, I guess). Nothing about the SH1 has come up in anything I've looked at, though. The role of Jupiter is one I didn't even go into because of its complexity and odd role as well in Project Mars, the Sega 32X. I would happen to agree with you on the cramming chips in, and we can use Retro Gamer to back the addition of the second processor, but it will be tough to hammer out what really went down. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please take the time to read through the forum post links I provided above, they provide information about 1990s magazine articles that discuss the SH1 and some of the other points. There is no definitive information on Sega's intent, so any discussion in this article on how Sega may have altered the Saturn in response to the PlayStation needs to be treated as speculation by reliable sources rather than as provable fact. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have any SH1 stuff here, but I've added the note from Retro Gamer about GigaDrive's single CPU planning and made it a little more ambiguous about whether or not Saturn was altered due to PlayStation. The problem with calling it speculation is that both Retro Gamer and Next Generation (a 1995 issue, no less), speak of it like they're absolutely certain of it - no bet hedging, nothing of that sort. That being said, I've tried to remove the connection by creating a new paragraph. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is okay. Its not the whole truth, but I think its as far as we can get with currently available reliable sources and does not introduce any information that may be false. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at this from another perspective. 32X was born at the January 1994 CES following a teleconference with Hayao Nakayama, Joe Miller, Hideki Sato, Scot Bayless, and Marty Franz. You must have access to Retro Gamer's 32X "Retroinspection" (issue 77), since you used it in the Sega 32X page. It seems that the dual SH-2s inside the Saturn were already well-known by January 1994, when Franz sketched two SH-2 processors with individual frame buffers on a hotel notepad and 32X was conceived. In his Retro Gamer interview (pg. 47), Franz elaborates on his design: "We really liked the Hitachi SH-2 CPUs that the Saturn had and felt they were the star of the show." Bayless (perhaps unsurprisingly showing preference for his team's design) notes that while Saturn and 32X shared the same dual CPUs, they used them very differently: Saturn's hardware rendering was bottlenecked by a "very high" pixel overwrite rate and "memory access stalls," whereas 32X "did everything in software" but had "two fast RISC chips tied to great big frame buffers and complete control to the programmer." Bayless concludes (pg. 46) "There's a part of me that wishes the Saturn had adopted the 32X graphics strategy, but that ship had sailed long before the greenlight call from Nakayama." While I don't know just how how "long before" 1994 the Saturn's design was finalized, Bayless' recollection casts doubt upon the popular theory that Saturn was redesigned in response to the announcement of PlayStation's specs in November 1993.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence that Saturn was redesigned late in development is pervasive and convincing. One interview with a vague timeframe comment does not really refute it. It's possible that Sega had a rough idea about the PlayStations capabilities before the public unveiling, of course. If we change this it should just be to hedge bets on the timing by taking out the November 1993 date and saying it was tweaked when Sega learned of the PlayStation's capabilities. Indrian (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not just the interviews; it's the fact that 32X was conceived in January 1994, at which point Saturn's shared dual-CPU approach must have been known throughout Sega. Either there was no redesign, Saturn was redesigned within one month, or Saturn was redesigned prior to PlayStation's public unveiling in November 1993. Since you are no doubt better informed about this from a technical point of view, I yield to your authority when it comes to determining which of these possibilities is most likely.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, first I want to be clear that I am not particularly technical. People far more technical than I, however, find it strange that the system uses an SH1 for a CD-ROM controller because that is complete overkill. They also note that there are two different blocks of RAM with different speeds, which would be a really odd choice for a cohesive design. It would therefore logically follow that the system was originally built around a single SH1 chip and less RAM. This actually matches up perfectly with rumored specs published by Mean Machines and Edge in 1993. While all rumors have to be taken with a grain of salt, the rumored specs and the strange final architecture sync up perfectly in this case. As I understand it, plugging in two SH2 chips, a second VDP, and more RAM would not require extensive changes since the board would already be configured for an SH chip architecture. I don't think its outside the realm of possibility that a decision could be made on that in November and up in a rudimentary form by January. The fact that Sega was apparently uncertain in early 1994 when the Saturn might finally ship lends credence to the idea that the project had suddenly and unexpectedly changed recently. For these reasons, I think its okay to go with what the reliable secondary literature says. We cannot prove 100% that they are correct, but we can give them the benefit of the doubt under WP:V and WP:TRUTH. Indrian (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Within the same week, David Rosen resigned as the chairman of Sega, and Nakayama resigned as CEO of Sega of Japan, though they remained with the company. Kalinske was replaced by Bernie Stolar, Sega of America's COO and a former Sony employee who had secured third-party developers to create games for the PlayStation. This is not accurate at all and is a good example of how Kent messes up his facts quite a bit. David Rosen and Hayao Nakayama were co-chairmen of Sega of America. This is the position Nakayama left in 1996. He remained CEO of Sega Enterprises until 1998, when he stepped down in the wake of a failed merger attempt with Bandai. Stolar was brought in as COO when Kalinske resigned, but he was not placed in charge of SOA. Shoichiro Irimajiri was named president of Sega of America in 1996 and would later become CEO of Sega Enterprises in 1998 when Nakayama resigned. Irimajiri had been specifically brought into Sega in 1993 as an executive vice president to bolster Sega' in the consumer realm since Nakayama's prime experience was in the arcade. Therefore, while Stolar's opinions on the Saturn were no doubt important, Irimiajiri was almost certainly calling the shots on how to handle the Saturn in the U.S. between 1996 and 1998.
  • Kent doesn't clarify this, you're right, and even IGN has this slipped up if that's the case (they mention Irimajiri but not at all in context of Saturn, only in Dreamcast). I have a little on the Bandai merger, but much of this is pretty scattershot across my sources and not too well tied in. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no need to discuss the Bandai merger in the context of the Saturn, but the article needs to be changed so that it no longer claims that Nakayama left the company in 1996. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. I think this ought to be all straightened out. Still not anything said about Irimiajiri, but Stolar certainly does have fame for his correlation with Saturn and, of course, what he said at E3 in 1997. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Stolar was clearly the public face of the company as the top ranking American, just like Reggie was the public face of NOA even before he was the president. I have no doubt he was intimately involved in the decision-making process as well. Ultimately, however, he was answerable to Irimajiri, who was in charge of the North American subsidiary. With Dreamcast it was different, because by then Irimajiri had moved on to Japan. Indrian (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      • This is not quite done yet, since there is still no mention of Irimajiri. Here is the press release that discusses both his and Stolar's appointments (Note: if you follow that link directly it wants you to log in, if you access the same press release through google instead, it displays the full thing. Even the truncated version shows that Irimajiri was in charge of SOA). Indrian (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        • That worked for me too. Weird... oh well. I've got that press release cited now, although I'm not so sure about where I put the {{subscription required}} template. That now has Irimajiri added. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
          • I reworded this because it still implied more power than Stolar had in this period. The press release is clear that Irimajiri replaced Kalinske and that Stolar was brought in as an EVP to improve the software situation for the system. With my changes, I am now satisfied that this concern has been addressed. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Done Not so much an accuracy thing, but if you look at the sales conversation near the top of the Saturn talk page, you will see that some European figures were unearthed. These should be added to the article for completeness.
  • Done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And that's it for round one. Once we have dealt with these issues, I will look at the other criteria more closely. A quick browse leads me to believe there will be few problems in this regard, but I will not make a detailed evaluation until we are done with the above. I believe this article will have no trouble achieving GA status with just a little work, so I am placing the nomination  On hold as we work to resolve these relatively minor issues. Indrian (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a common issue with retrospectives, especially since they tend to use ambiguous wording. My access to period sources, though, is limited, so I appreciate the accuracy review. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, points 2, 3, and 4 have been satisfied. I am still not satisfied with the GigaDrive situation and feel we need to discuss that some more. I will start a more formal GA review below now, though it will probably be a few more hours before my comments are posted. I believe we are getting fairly close. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside drive-by comment from an uninvolved editor- A-freaking-plus to both of you for going so in depth on sorting out these complex, murky issues from 20 years ago. Indrian's right- most GA reviewers would have never even known to look for this stuff. --PresN 03:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Round 2

I will start my formal review now, taking the article a section at a time. Of course, as previously stated, the GigaDrive concerns above also still stand.

Lead

 Done Note: I should have included this in as a placeholder from the beginning. I am not going to comment on the lead yet because the changes I have requested to the body will ultimately require changes to the lead as well, so I feel it is better to tackle all of that at once. I have also moved a thread from below up to here for better organization.

• I'm not sure where to put this, but the lead states that "the Saturn's development was originally designed to play titles popular on Sega's arcade system hardware, but was modified for 3D capabilities in response to the announcement of the PlayStation". Sega arcade games like Virtua Racing and Virtua Fighter were pioneers in 3D graphics; whatever Saturn's 3D limitations, it's dubious to allege that 3D was added at the last minute to combat Sony.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this was a case where over simplifying to keep the lead concise led to trouble. As the body of the article correctly states, the original specs would have been capable of 3D, but would not have done it nearly as well as the PlayStation, so the specs were beefed up. Honestly, I deliberately avoided commenting on the lead yet, because some of the changes I have asked for in the body will probably result in the need for extensive changes in the lead so that it accurately summarizes the whole article. Indrian (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of updating the lead to reflect some of the changes made to the decline section. I believe the lead covers the salient points of the article and requires no further changes at this time. Indrian (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History

•  Done As this is an article about the Saturn, starting with the Mega Drive comes across as a little jarring. I know this is your standard MO and I don't have a problem with the concept at all, but there should probably be a topic sentence to start the section that ties it in better. Something to the effect of "At the time Sega was developing the Saturn, the company was enjoying great success with its 16-bit home console." Then the paragraph can continue with the info you already have. Feel free to use different wording, but this helps the reader understand why the article is no longer talking about the Saturn after the intro.
  • Inserted "Prior to the release of the Saturn", to introduce Saturn first. I felt it was important to start here as it was the precursor, without going back to Sega's formation as we did with the Genesis article. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Done "Success for Sega had also come in arcade games." This sentence is really awkward. The subject of the sentence should be "Sega," but instead it is the object of a preposition and "success" is the subject.
  • Reworded. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Done "which were very well received by gamers." This needs a better source. The Retro Gamer article says the games on the Model 1 were "wowing gamers," which is a vague statement that is probably more about technical capabilities than whether or not the games were actually liked. Now, I realize that Virtua Racer and Virtua Fighter were, in fact, well-received; I would just appreciate better sourcing of this fact.
  • Changed to "impressing gamers". I'm not sure I have a better source about the Model 1. Heck, if I had better sources at all, I'd have redone List of Sega arcade system boards a while ago. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Development

•  Done "The later commercial failure of the 3DO also suggested to Sega that the console marketplace may not have been ready for full 3D technology." The source does not actually say this. It claims Sega was worried the market was not ready for 3D and argues that the later failure of the 3DO vindicated that concern. In other words, the source claims Sega was already concerned before the 3DO failed.
  • Rectified. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Done "Observers of the PlayStation who were involved with Saturn development said that the PlayStation appeared to be more powerful than the Saturn project." Another overly long and convoluted sentence.
  • This should be clearer. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Done "By 1994, the Genesis was starting to lag in its capabilities when compared to its main rival..." Again, this sudden transition is jarring. The entire section is about the Saturn, but suddenly we have a paragraph that starts off talking about the Genesis. Again, its not the info itself that is bad, but rather the transition. It should read something like "As Saturn development continued into early 1994 with no release date in sight, Nakayama worried more advanced systems like the Atari Jaguar and technically impressive games slated for release on the SNES would undermine the Genesis and seriously damage Sega's home console business." Then you can start in on the 32X stuff with a stronger foundation in Saturn development. Again, the sentence above is just an example and you can be free to use different words.
  • Took this right out of the 32X article with some alterations, so I'm not surprised. I rephrased the opening into this. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Launch

•  Done "Within the first two days, the system sold over 250,000 units, but sales diminished over the next few months." I realize that this is what Retro Gamer says, but it feels pretty off to me. The Saturn was fairly successful in Japan, outselling the N64 in the region. Sales did fall off, of course, but that took more than a couple of months. In High Score, the authors claim that by the end of 1994, Sega had an edge over Sony 500,000 to 300,000. Momentum later shifted to Sony's favor, of course, but sales took awhile to trail off. Its probably also worth mentioning that the reason Saturn did so well in Japan when all its previous consoles failed was the popularity of Virtua Fighter. Kent can be used to source that.
  • I've gone ahead and removed the sale diminishing statement. I'll have to track down the Virtua Fighter Statement.
•  Done 32X stuff. I realize that the 32X and the Saturn were similar systems planned to fill a similar niche and launching at a similar time. Still, there is a lot of switching between the 32X and Saturn with no clear transition. This section is about the launch of the Saturn, yet right in the middle of a paragraph on the Japanese launch, the reader is suddenly confronted with the 32X. There is no good reason for this. Furthermore, I see no reason in discussing the market performance of the 32X at all unless you have sources that state the 32X was important in some way to the Saturn. The Saturn helped torpedo the 32X, but I do not believe the 32X had any real impact on Saturn.

I have a question. The article says Virtua Fighter was a pack-in game, but Kent pg. 502 says that "no games were packed in with the console." Which is true?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed I missed that. Kent is correct so far as I know, as bundling was not a common practice in Japan. The Retro Gamer article used as the primary source for that section does not claim it was a pack-in either. This needs to be changed to reflect that Virtua Fighter was available at launch and drove early sales, but was not packed-in. Indrian (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In any regard, I've removed about two or three sentences on this, basically just to highlight its similar launch time and approximate price. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes at Sega

 Done There is a lot of extraneous material here again. The market fragmentation and strain of supporting too many systems at once is relevant to Saturn, but the launch of the Sega Nomad does not matter one bit in context. Mentioning that Nintendo performed well by focusing on 16-bit is fine, but calling out specific SNES titles in an article about the Saturn? Not so much.

• I took out a few sentences, and I agree. That's why it's nice to have an extra set of eyes on an article. Does more need to come out? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X-Treme

 Done This section is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Its the longest section in the entire history section and contains details better suited to the article on the game itself. This should be trimmed to stay focused on elements that are important to Saturn as a whole. It might actually be nice to rework this section to discuss NiGHTS briefly as well, which ended up being the most important release of 1996 when Sonic X-Treme failed to materialize.

I agree about the undue length of the section, since no-one really knows what effect X-treme might have had on the market. I'm also concerned about the following unsourced statements--misattributed to IGN's "Sonic X-treme Revisited"--which apparently were copied from the Wikipedia page on Sonic X-treme (which, in turn, does not provide a source): "The boss level engine began to evolve into a game of its own using this new source of inspiration, trying to stay closer to its 2D roots by adopting a 3D but side-scrolling viewpoint. The new boss engine gameplay prototype adopted a more pastel color scheme and organic flow of the inspirational Nights into Dreams..., made by Sonic creator Yuji Naka." Only Nintendo Life's description of the boss engine as "a NiGHTs-like 3D affair" in "The Sonic Games That Never Were" comes close to supporting these assertions; none of the sources allege (similarities aside) that the boss engine was "inspired" by NiGHTs.

It's unfortunate that none of the sources on X-treme are particularly good. For example, IGN's assertion that Sonic Jam was intended as "a big middle finger to STI" strikes me as sensational; Yuji Naka doesn't appear to recall this supposedly intense "rivalry". All of these journalists seem to be relying on Senn as their main/only source, and he is an interested party. Obviously, we must deal with the sources we have, but I do want to call attention to Nintendo Life's claim that "Although Sonic X-treme is the most well-known it's the untitled Sonic Saturn that arguably showed the most promise." Was there a separate, equally important cancelled project called Sonic Saturn? Apparently not, since the very Chris Senn FAQ Nintendo Life links to states that "Sonic Saturn" was merely an alternative name for X-treme!

How did they manage to show Nakayama an "old, outdated version of the main game's engine"? Apparently, the footage Nakayama saw was (in IGN's words) "ported by a subcontracted developer, reportedly running at a horrible frame-rate and looking less than impressive." Whether or not this is important enough to note I leave to your discretion, but according to Nintendo Life and Senn's FAQ, the name of this subcontracted developer was "POV".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've boldly trimmed down the section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to point out the UNDUE issues with Sonic Xtreme too. Don't get me wrong, I'm personally fascinated with the game...but much of that information is available at its own article. (I wrote much of it myself.) So yeah, I definitely support trimming. Sergecross73 msg me 03:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"The main game levels were developed in a tubular mode, allowing level rotation and gravity directions" seemed a bit vague, so I added a little more detail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it's been stripped down already; hopefully it ought to be adequate. Facts aside, I'm of the opinion that Sonic X-treme could have been what Super Mario 64 was for the Nintendo 64. If there's one thing the Saturn was missing, it was definitely a Sonic title. Having played Sonic R on Sonic Gems Collection, it's almost not even a fun game, as unbalanced as it is with only five tracks. Just an interesting bit of input. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with the sentiment, and that's why I support it having its own subsection like this, I just thought it was a little too long considering how much is already available at its own article, which was linked in the section. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I personally doubt X-treme would have had anything remotely comparable to Mario 64's impact on the market, I agree that the absence of an exclusive Sonic platformer is a salient fact about the Saturn.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I never advocated removing the section, just trimming it. This looks much better now, and I thank everyone who stepped in to help whip it into shape. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline

 Done I'm sorry, but the claim that Sega distancing itself from Saturn destroyed Saturn is just silly. By the time Stolar made that statement in mid-1997, the N64 had been launched and created a one-two punch with the PlayStation that buried Sega. Stolar was only stating a fact that was already obvious. This needs to be reworked to acknowledge the actual market forces that defeated Sega.

I do believe that Sega's issues with designing and abandoning the Saturn hurt things...but you are correct, there probably should be more emphasis on the damage done by the PS1, N64, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 03:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, to clarify, I am talking about mid-1997 on specifically and the Stolar quote in the article. Saturn was difficult to program, limited in its 3D capabilities, and did not offer the same profit margins for developers as PlayStation did, because Sega stuck to an old-fashioned royalty structure based on a ROM cartridge model unlike Sony even though they moved to CD. This caused developers to flock to Sony with exclusives and players to flock to Sony for games that played better on that system even if they appeared on both. Stolar publicly stating that Sega was abandoning the system may have cost them a few sales, but they were already barely above a single-digit marketshare by then, so the performance would have still been dismal. Saturn died the minute the N64 took off in the US in late 1996, because the market was just not big enough for three systems. Even though Nintendo lost its momentum in the latter part of 1997, Sega was in no position to catch up by then regardless of development commitment. Indrian (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Kent book notes market percentages by that point, highlighting that Sega only had 12% of the market. I know Kent's accuracy is in question periodically, but might this be a reliable figure to throw in the article to illustrate this? Also... none of my research indicated anything about the royalties and development on Saturn. The most I found was about developers who left in disgust after Sega abandoned the Saturn despite its success in Japan. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite the errors, Kent is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Therefore, as long as we do not have evidence that he is wrong, he can be used. Feel free to use Kent in this instance. Indrian (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Redone. I actually quite like the result - the Osborne effect is played down but not forgotten - it certainly did damage Sega's reputation a little bit, but Sega started falling out because Saturn couldn't keep up with its competitors. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

While I have no objections to the current text, I will note that other sources give Sega's market share during the entire 1995-2000 period as 23% (versus Nintendo at 28% and Sony at 47%), with a fraction of that due to the Dreamcast. This doesn't contradict Kent's claim that Saturn was at 12% in 1997, but since Kent doesn't seem to provide a source for the figure or mention Saturn's standing by the time of its discontinuation, I thought it might be worth mentioning this data here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical Specifications

 Done The section starts by stating that the system contains eight processors, but it subsequently only lists six that I can see. One of the missing ones is the SH1 that served as the CD-ROM controller. I do not know what the other one was off the top of my head, but it should be easy to find. They should all be mentioned briefly.l

Believe it or not, I couldn't find the other two in the refs I had. It's not as easy as it looks. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will try doing some digging as well. If they can't be found, they can't be found. I certainly will not fail the article over it. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we can leave this be for now. Indrian (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The 8 processors are: 2xSH2 CPUs, VDP1 and VDP2 graphics processors, 68EC000 sound CPU, SCSP (sound chip with integrated FH1 DSP), SH1 (CDROM controller) and a DSP in the System Control Unit (SCU). Info taken from the development manuals. 81.174.170.145 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NetLink

 Done I do not know why this section exists. Its the only subsection, which is poor form, and its just a tiny paragraph. The section header should probably be removed. The info itself is fine.

It exists because I was planning to do more with it, and then couldn't find any sourcing. I guess I was hoping to make it like the Network services section of Sega Genesis, but in fairness that had two sections and those were two of the hardest GAs I've ever written due to lack of sources. Section header removed. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception

I have no concerns with this section.

Sweet. I am actually concerned myself with how short it is and think it needs more (akin to the reception in Sega 32X), but that can be dealt with on the pathway to an FAC if I can get it that good. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Its short for a FAC, but I think it fine for a GA. It is a slightly lower standard. Indrian (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the recent deletions have harmed this section, making it less organized and informative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See also

 Done Is this Phillips CD-i shout out a relic of our recent sockpuppet attack by Jak and friends? Because otherwise I have no idea why this system is considered relevant to the article. I would take this out myself, but just in case you had a reason for it I will leave it for now.

I'd be in favor of it's removal, unless I'm missing something and there's some sort of good rationale I'm not aware of... Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I plugged it in as basically it's the only other "console" that ran during the Saturn's era that isn't already linked and discussed in the article. Technically it would be a competitor, albeit not much of one. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

But it's not the only other one. There was the Pippin, the PC-FX, the FM Towns Marty, and the Playdia just to name a few. Anyway, according the the style manual, a see also section "should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic." The CD-i is not closely related to the Saturn in any way. I still maintain it does not belong. Indrian (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If there's one thing I've seen, it's that editors have had various opinions on this all across FAC, etc. I'm not sure Wikipedia is consistent on that, but I really don't mind either way. I don't happen to like "See also" sections either (i.e. if it's relevant, wouldn't it be linked in the article already if it's comprehensive?) but I know others swear by always including one. I personally don't care; adding CD-i was the best thing I could think of to replace List of Sega Saturn games in that section, which wasn't necessary anymore when I added it to the Game library subsection. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

References

 Done*Infobox. There are two items cited in the infobox, which I believe is usually frowned upon. The final sales figure is already cited later in the article, so this is not necessary at all. The NA discontinuation date is not even mentioned in the article, so that should be fixed, probably by placing the date and the source in the "decline" section. Come to think of it, the Japanese and European discontinuation dates are not mentioned in the article at all and are also not cited. These should also be added to the "decline" section with appropriate sources. Also, SegaNet is discussed in the infobox, but not in the article. If you want to keep it in the infobox, you should discuss it briefly in the peripheral section. Finally, Virtua Fighter is listed as the best-selling game, but there is no source for this. I personally hate best-selling game sections in infoboxes, because sales data is usually incomplete and we really have no idea in most cases which game sold the best.

• • No, it should be gone. It's just a leftover from before. I didn't WP:TNT it all the way, I just stripped it out and salvaged what I could, then rebuilt the rest. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)'
    • And poof, gone. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done *The "PONG" article. This article is riddled with small errors and I question its reliability. Regardless, it only states that the Saturn was discontinued in 1998, it does not give an exact date. A different source will be needed to support the contention that the Saturn was discontinued in North America on August 10 of that year.

• • I agree, actually. This is one I just haven't removed yet and should be. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• GamePro worst selling consoles of all time. This article is a travesty that appears to pull half its numbers out of thin air and does not include numerous consoles like the Studio II, Channel F, and PC-FX that only sold in the hundreds of thousands or low millions. I would not use this article to source anything. In the case of the Saturn, GamePro probably pulled its 9.5 million figure from a March 1998 Brandweek article called "Looking for a Sonic Boom" that gives that figure. This is not the final figure since the system was sold a little longer than that, but it is close to the final figure. The article should be cited directly rather than the GamePro piece. I can provide the citation info if necessary.
  • If you've got it, great. We already debunked its 200k number for the 32X (as further backing, Next Generation claims 400k for 32X in December 1995, possibly North America only, and we know it was officially discontinued in 1996.) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll get this in before the review ends. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done *Yu Suzuki and the "killer app." The source is fine, but it does not say what our article claims it does. According to the IGN piece, Suzuki was "charged" with creating the game, and Suzuki believed it would be a "killer app." That is different from saying management charged him with creating a killer app.

• • This would be a paraphrasing issue in an attempt not to plagiarize, that's all. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • No, its not. Our article currently states that management charged Suzuki with creating a killer app. In other words, management decided they needed a system seller and ordered Suzuki to create a game that would very likely determine the future of the console. That is in no way what the source says. This is exactly how facts get distorted into untruths in secondary sources and is just plain sloppy. Indrian (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)]
      • Reworded, but I would strongly appreciate it if you put down the criticism of my editing. It was done that way in an attempt not to plagiarize, and you could have been kinder in saying it needed to be reworded differently. I don't appreciate the response here. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Wait a minute, I think I understand now. I thought you were saying there was not an issue, which did not sit well with me. Now that I read your comment again, it looks like you were saying that the issue was introduced accidentally while attempting to paraphrase. Also, I had no idea who put that info in, so the comment was not directed at you. My apologies if I offended. I think this was just a misunderstanding. Anyway, thanks for changing it. Indrian (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Done NintendoLife. This source is not generally considered reliable. Is there good justification for using it?
  • Not necessarily. It was used in Sega Genesis in its FAC, as far as I'm aware, so I didn't reason that it wasn't considered reliable. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

--

And that's it. I admit, that is more than I was expecting, so there is a bit of work ahead. I hope the review does not come across as too negative, because on the whole I feel you have done a remarkable job of reworking a terrible article into something worthwhile in a remarkably short period of time. I have nothing but admiration for your efforts, and I am still confident that this can be sorted out in relatively short order. The last thing left to comment on are images and references, which I hope to get to later today. Good luck, and I am happy to provide any assistance I can. Indrian (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

These will take me a while to respond; I've skimmed the notes for now. I had to pick up an extra day at work today and will have much more to do over the next few days, limiting my available time to work on this. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Take your time, I am in no hurry. I don't know if the bot automatically fails an article after seven days or not, but I personally see no reason for you to have to finish all of this in seven as long as progress is being made. Indrian (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick jumping into the discussion here: to answer your question, Indrian, the bot does not automatically fail an article after seven days, even if it is not changed from "Review" to "On hold". If you look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Exceptions report, you'll see that there are 32 reviews open that are more than 7 days old. The bot updates the article history but leaves passing or failing to the reviewer. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So, Red, feel free to take as much time as you need. As long is actual progress is being made, I won't fail this on time grounds. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I ended up being called into work yesterday and then told that I have to work extra days through the end of this month—if you can, avoid ever getting into retail management. Having looked over all of the notes by now, I'm honestly surprised, and yet not surprised. That's a lot more teardown than I expected on accuracy grounds, but at the same time, my resource access is limited (maybe I should enroll in school again just to have access to resource databases, ha ha), and believe it or not I've never actually owned, or even played, a Sega Saturn. Most of what I knew of it before working on this article a few days ago came from my research on the 32X, which again I've never played. We found out a while ago that Genesis retrospective references had a lot of issues, too, so I'm honestly not surprised there have been so many more. Many of the "wording" issues and what the article says above being different come from my attempts to rephrase and not plagiarize the sources. I'll try to do some in my evenings, but I work 12-hour days. It may be until my next day off until I can really give it a good polish, but with some luck I may get it in the next couple of days. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, don't get discouraged by the large number of notes. As I stated before, overall you have done a tremendous job whipping what was a truly atrocious article into shape. I have no doubt that once you have the time to dig into the article and give it a few revisions that it will take relatively little effort to address my concerns. Indrian (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I just marked most of my issues as resolved. The remaining big issues are the whole GigaDrive thing and expanding the "Decline" section. We are getting really close. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Those two should be resolved. Nice. If this gets passed tomorrow it'll likely be passed as a GA on the same day Sega 32X gets passed as an FA. I'm so excited. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not planning to touch this at all for a couple of days. Too bothered by all the recent goings-on here to say anything. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who exactly this is directed at or which specific goings-on you are referring to, but this article is really close to reaching GA status. If you are not going to work on the last few, relatively minor, points because you feel discouraged, I am not sure the review should be kept open. It seems to me,though, that you, me, and TimesAreAChanging have put too much work into this over the last several days just to quit because hashing out an article can be hard sometimes. It's your decision, but I would urge you to reconsider. Indrian (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It should all be addressed by this point; deletion of one paragraph should have finished it. If you have any further concerns about it, let me know. I'm not sure what else needs to be done except that all of the restructure efforts need to be stopped to allow this article to pass the stability criterion. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the Brandweek reference we discussed and updated the lead. I am going to give the whole article one more careful read before passing. I anticipate passing it shortly. Indrian (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is now my priviledge to promote this article to GA status. I know this review became a little contentious at times, but I would like to thank everyone who joined the discussion here and helped this process along to a successful result. Particular kudos to User:Red Phoenix, who has once again taken one of wikipedia's worst console articles and in a relatively short time transformed it into something both he and the project as a whole can be proud of. I do not believe this article is quite ready for FAC just yet -- both the reception and game library sections feel a bit short still to me and I think that more can be said about the system's commercial fortunes -- but there is no doubt it is worthy of the GA title. Well done! Indrian (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

G4 Icons source

The episode can be viewed here:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMXlyzyyLlE

Since that is not an official host, that particular link can't be used as a citation. The episode itself is a very useful source for the console. I'm not 100% on the rules. Even though it can't be legally accessed online, it can still be cited correct? I used this episode as a reference for the quote in the Sega_Saturn#Reception section. I believe this source should also be used elsewhere in the article.

Please double check that I used the proper referencing formatting:

• Sega_Saturn#cite_note-G4_Icons-68

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think it's worth citing in its current state, but future expansion of the Reception section may make use of it if more retrospective quotes from Sega executives come to light, like the whole paragraph of Sega 32X. The IGN source also has the quote. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a high quality retrospective documentary series, that passes as a WP:RS. That is a rarity with video games. Many retrospectives are low quality amateur Youtube sources that do not pass as WP:RS. It should be used more.

Also the quote is interesting since it's the President of Sega of America listing all the problems with the system. It's a nice summary of the issues that led to its downfall. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Article reorganization

I believe that Saturn programming deserves its own section. The N64 article has a section on this as well. Both systems were notoriously hard to program for. So I created a new section for it. And a new sub-section for accessories. This reduces the size of the game library section a lot. That section should probably be expanded.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you said this. I already felt the "game library" section was a bit short. I intend to look into the matter and expand the section soon.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also moved Sonic X-treme to the Game libraries section. That section is more about the game, than the Saturn itself. It's a very large amount of space to dedicate to a single game. Might make sense to trim the Sonic X-treme section and merge it with the rest of the Game Library section. As it stands, that section discusses the Sonic games twice and it's redundant. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception section can also be split up among Game library, History and other sections. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the changes you made to "Reception". It seems less organized now, and it was concise enough that I'm not sure it needed to be trimmed. Does anyone else feel the same way?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is messy. I'm not done. And it needs to be fixed. However, I don't see how long quotes really help anything. Also it should be renamed Legacy and maybe focus on the after effects of the console and how it is received today and affected later consoles, Sega and the gaming industry. The early reception should also be merged into the history section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Harizotoh, I believe you have some good ideas for this article and think much of your reorganization makes sense -- especially the new programming subsection -- but you are leaving us a bit of a quandary. You began your work in the middle of a GA review, meaning that the article as it exists now is different in several substantial ways to the one I began reviewing. While I believe many of your changes will make the article stronger in the long run, I do feel that in the short term they are threatening a successful outcome for this review. I am not advocating a course of action here myself, but I think you and User:Red Phoenix need to talk and figure out what each of you wants to accomplish here. Indrian (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's an issue I can just revert the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with restructuring the article. It's designed this way for a reason, and it's drawn up not to be too technical. Nintendo 64 is a bad example: Sega Genesis, Sega CD, and Sega 32X are better examples of proper structure of a console article, and it's not supposed to be too technical, per WP:NOTMANUAL. I've spent most of my efforts here and elsewhere trying to weed out and remove all this technical cruft that's unencyclopedic. Sonic X-treme belongs in the History because it's a key point of the console's history, the failure to create a flagship title using the company's mascot. I don't mind adding more to Reception, but it has to be balanced with more third-party feedback and outside reliable sources before we add in the primary responses, to keep use of primary sources sparse. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well sourced technical information is valid, in their own sections.

Both the N64, and Saturn were notoriously hard to program for and information on this

As currently organized, some section don't make much sense. The Game Library section starts by saying the Saturn uses CDs, and with a quote saying it is difficult to program for. Then the second paragraph discusses programming. It's only one actual paragraph discussing the game library itself. Most of it is actually hardware and programming discussion.

The technical specifications section is also very big and needs to be split up. A subheading for accessories. And a subheading for Programming. The paragraph on quadrilaterals goes to programming.

In general the article needs a few more subheadings since many of them are too big. See this for how I had it set up. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception

I'll move discussion here. Information in here should be moved around a bit. The first paragraph's information should be incorporated into the history section.

The third paragraph should go to the decline of the history section.

The section should be relabeled "Legacy" and focus on how the Saturn affected Sega, the industry and how it's viewed today. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

and its game library contains a number of arcade ports as well as original titles.

Is this actually needed? Because this can be said for the N64 and Playstation, not even mention others. Should we remove it? 64.134.64.30 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)