Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. I remember my brother used to have one. Aside from that I don't generally play video games at all, I've never owned any console of any kind, and haven't seen one of these in about 20 years, so bear in mind you're talking to an outside point of view on this!

Stability[edit]

I'm going to concentrate on this before everything else, as this article has one of the most infamous renaming / edit wars in Wikipedia history. A recent incident occurred this March, where Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) indefinitely fully-protected the article in (this diff). We don't normally fully-protect stuff unless there are severe stability problems. The previous GA reviews don't seem to be linked correctly, as they have been created under the old name of Mega Drive.

So, can you assure me that that's all in the past, won't happen again, and the article is now generally progressing in one consistent direction. Personally, I am ambivalent - although I'm British, I recall "Genesis" emulators appearing in the mid-1990s, so I'm used to the term.

Reading through the article, the text seems to jump between "Mega Drive" and "Genesis". I would stick consistently with "Genesis" and only refer to "Mega Drive" if the prose specifically talks about features on a non-US model (eg: "on the European Mega Drive")

Aside from that, I'll read through the article now and make comments hopefully by the end of today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Re stability: I've had a minor discussion with Red Phoenix and Sergecross regarding the potential for the title to be switched back to "Mega Drive" after Red Phoenix's rewrite, given that the article appears to foster a larger world view than it did before, and some of the most contentious issues in that dispute are being addressed (such as the faulty sales figures). I don't know if it necessarily would go back to MD, but it's my hope that any future discussion on that issue would be properly based on the new state of the article and not on the "traditional" conjecture, and that it would lead to greater overall stability. That said, I know that that's a big can of worms nobody really wants to open again, so I'm not sure what we'd rather do on this front. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
As long as the key players agree on this to be the way forward, we're fine. "Stability" in the context of the GA criteria is really for constant back and forth between editors, making a version of the article to review against impossible. That's exactly what happened in March (you wouldn't have had a full protect otherwise). What I would do is wait until the GA review finishes. Assuming the review passes, the article will then have a broad coverage of reliable sources accurately covering the topic with the correct due weight on them. At that point, you can tot up what source mentions what name, and if there's a clear and obvious consensus that "Mega Drive" is the preferred option for the sources present, that's what the article should be called. Having said all of that, I know nobody wants to resurrect this old chestnut yet again. Regardless of which - if "Genesis" is the article name, then "Genesis" should be the dominant term used. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Makes good sense to me. I'll note the progress made in our FAQ when the time comes. Thanks for your input. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Been a long time coming, hasn't it? I will just go ahead and note as one of those "key players" you're referring to, that I do agree on this to be the way forward. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, just wanted to mention that I think you're incorrect on one point above: Dennis apparently full-protected the page back in March using Twinkle, then changed the protection level to semi-protected with a note that Twinkle wasn't working the way he wanted to. It looks like approximately 10 days passed between the two protects, but his note seems to indicate full-protection wasn't what he intended. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but it doesn't let APL off the hook for edit-warring with the IP or calling their edits vandalism (I'm happy to assume they were trying to improve the article). Anyway, plenty of GAs and FAs are semi-protected, so I'm not worried about that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I was that IP and APL was vandalising the article, he changed every reference of Mega Drive when in the context of the European market to Genesis, I changed them back and he began warring but those issues seem to have been overcome.Technotopia (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  • No, APL was not vandalising. He was doing what he thought was the right thing to do to the article (even if nobody else agreed with him), and was inviting discussion on the talk page. If he was blanking sections and replacing them with, say, "sonic fanboyz r gay", then that would be vandalism. Check the definition of WP:VANDAL carefully! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333, I don't know what the heck you're talking about.
At least four editors (including myself) were reverting the disruptive changes by a single IP account. If "Nobody agreed with [me]" why was the wording we were reverting to kept from March until last week when that section was rewritten to a third, better, wording? (Actually, at the time you posted your comment, the version we restored still stood.) If you or anyone else believed our reverts were improper, you've had months to restore IP user's version. But nobody did.
Which makes a lot of sense, because I and the others were doing nothing more than reverting back to the consensus version. (The IP editor was a single-purpose account with an axe to grind. He was blocked for this behavior, and I notice that after his block expired, he made exactly three edits, all vandalism.)
I would like either an explanation of your comments or an apology. APL (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

History[edit]

  •  DoneThe reference for the first sentence needs a page number
  •  Done "Already on the market at this point was the SG-1000" - what was the SG-1000 exactly?
This paragraph is also problematic from an accuracy standpoint. It is true that a stumbling arcade market helped lead Sega into the console market, but this was a factor in the creation of the SG-1000 launched in 1983. Therefore these decisions were made before the buyout when Sega was still a subsidiary of Gulf & Western. Nakayama was running the Japanese part of the business at that time. Indrian (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I see that's problematic, except that it doesn't really touch on the origins of the SG-1000; I mentioned in the article that the SG-1000 was already on the market by the time of the acquisition, and that Nakayama decided to focus on home consoles. Am I missing something here? I've made this more clear in the article.
As written now, the article implies that the company made the decision to make a major commitment to the home market AFTER the buyout and treats the SG-1000 as some kind of primordial anomaly from before this change in focus. This is simply not true. When Sega announced the SG-1000 in May 1983, the company's managing director made a statement that Sega's fate was now tied to the home market. That is when the focus on the home began. Indrian (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
If you've got that statement, that would be awesome. I haven't been able to find anything about that. Honestly, I didn't read that particular connotation into the statement. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
If (and only if) you have a reliable source for all of that, it would certainly be worth mentioning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I know where to locate the publication in question, but will not be able to acquire it in time to do a proper citation for this review. Its not strictly necessary to fix my problem with this paragraph anyway. I will just go ahead and rearrange the material that is in the article. As I stated before, its not that the information is incorrect so much as I feel the flow of the paragraph puts undue emphasis on the post-buyout period. Indrian (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I completely rewrote the first paragraph of the history section to provide more context on Sega's difficulties in the period and Nakayama's decision to move into the home market in 1983. I think it just lines up the chronology a little better. I need to add a little sourcing to what I supplied, which I will do this evening when I am back with the bulk of my research materials again. I'm going to go ahead and mark this one as done though, as I believe I satisfied the reviewer's initial concern that the SG-1000 was not properly defined. Indrian (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Furthermore, the release of NEC's PC-Engine .... having to compete with NEC" - don't need the second "NEC", "them" will suffice. The source cited to this sentence does not appear to mention the PC-Engine
It is not mentioned by name, but the "much-publicized 16-bit system" mentioned in the article is, in fact, the PC Engine. Indrian (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "the name of the console was changed to "Genesis" due to a trademark dispute" - with whom, exactly?
The dispute was with a hard drive maker called Supra that released a product called the Mega Drive for the Atari ST. The hard drive is shown at http://www.atarimagazines.com/startv3n5/harddrivecompare.html. I am away from my research materials at the moment, but I will try to locate a reliable source that specifically mentions the trademark dispute so this can be added to the article. Indrian (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
That's great if you have it; Retro Gamer suggests another company but cannot state with exact certainty if that was the case. If you have one that does, that's awesome. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I cannot find anything definitive. I do not think Retro Gamer is correct, because Megadrive Systems did not file for a trademark until 1991. Interestingly, the only Megadrive trademark on file that would fit the time period is for skiwear and athletic shoes, which would most likely not conflict with Sega's interest in electronics. It could be that Sega was just worried about brand confusion between their product and the Supra Megadrive or some other product. I don't think we have the sourcing required to sort this one out; even the Retro Gamer article hedges its bets and says "consensus" says it was a trademark dispute rather than coming straight out and saying it was. Indrian (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Right, and that's why I didn't want to post that in the article. I think we can safely say it was a trademark dispute, but we can't say for sure what it was with. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
In that case, you're probably best off saying "According to Retro Gamer's Joe Schmoe, the name change derived from a trademark dispute" - make it clear it's an opinion, not fact. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I changed the sentence to make it clear that we cannot be certain a trademark dispute was involved. I am going to mark this one as closed, but we can revisit if you feel my edit was not sufficient. Indrian (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
What's the consequence of simply not mentioning a trademark issue at all? Do we have any evidence that the decision to change the name for the US market was for any reason other than "we felt like it"? Note how Nintendo marketed the Famicom and Super Famicom as the NES and SNES outside of Japan, even though there was no outside force responsible for it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The trademark theory does appear suspect, as the US Trademark database shows only a single mark active during the launch period of the Mega Drive, and it is for athletic equipment as stated above. I think risk of brand confusion with the Supra Megadrive (which does not appear to have been trademarked) is the most likely reason for the change since they kept Megadrive as the name in Europe. Note I am just speculating for my own edification and not advocating adding that to the article, as there is no sourcing for that. I would personally have no problem with just removing it. Indrian (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the lede last night to simply mention that the console was rebranded in the US, without attempting to explain why. When we get a good source that really does explain this in detail, we can add the appropriate prose and citation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  DoneThe last sentence in the first paragraph is now unsourced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I will be adding sourcing to the first paragraph over the next day or so. Indrian (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, I moved the Kent reference down a line, because that same page discusses the management buyout and Nakayama's appointment as CEO. I still need to add a little sourcing in a couple of other areas, but this specific issue can be closed. Indrian (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Added a couple more sources, this paragraph is almost finished. Indrian (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, the entire first paragraph has references now. The only sentences without a cite are pulling from the same ref as the following sentence. Indrian (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Launch[edit]

  •  Done "Released in Japan on October 29, 1988, the Japanese launch for the Mega Drive" - the wording is a bit awkward here. I'd suggest "The Mega Drive was released in Japan on October 29, 1988." and put the remaining prose in a separate sentence.
  •  Done Some of the second paragraph may not be correctly cited to sources. For instance, this Nintendo Life source doesn't seem to say anything about the claim that "Although the Sega Genesis was not capable of arcade-exact graphics & sound, it was closer than what was possible on the NES or Master System". It does mention that arcade titles were ported, but that's not quite the same thing.
    • Went ahead and stripped that out. We already covered Sega's basis of arcade technology earlier by stating how the Genesis was based on the System 16, and mentioned the Sonic revolution later. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there needs to be more about Sonic The Hedgehog as being the "killer app" that made the console commercially successful, I don't recall anybody caring much the device before the release of that.
    • Working on that, and I think a full paragraph in "Console wars" would be a better spot for that because Sonic wasn't launched until 1991, and the approach used to market Sonic was so crucial to his success, placing him as the pack-in for the Genesis and positioning him directly to compete with Mario, but with an attitude and as the "cooler" character. Would like to use bits from Sonic the Hedgehog (character), as well as IGN's 11-page History of Sega, but I'm not sure if it is full of errors since we've had some debate on IGN's research with the numbers (note, though, that it is a different writer). @Indrian: and @KieferSkunk:, could I get an honest assessment on the IGN article and ideas on how to approach Sonic? I agree it should be a larger section in this article; Sonic was very important to the success of Genesis. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • That History of Sega article is pretty good, and I have no problem with it being used. There is also a video retrospective of Sonic done by Game Tap and watchable on YouTube that is full of info taken from interviews with several of the major players. Indrian (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Tec Toy also ran the internet service" - in 1990? I don't think it would have been commercially successful at that point
Edited the sentence to make it clear that the Mega Net service launched in 1995 and not when the console was released in 1990. Indrian (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Not to wreck everything here, but was it MegaNet in Brazil and Net Work System in Japan? Which service was MegaNet, the modem or the cable line? Neither Sega Net Work System nor Sega Channel really make this clear, and I think this may cause some confusion to the reader. Heck, I'm a Sega junkie and I'm confused. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Sega entered the partnership in the northern hemisphere spring of 1995" - this sentence is grammatically incorrect, and confusing. Up to this point, all countries mentioned except Brazil are in the northern hemisphere
  •  Done "Samsung handled it" - handled what? (Presumably "sales of the console") This short sentence can be joined onto the subsequent one.
  •  Done Can you confirm scanlines16.com is a reliable source?
This site is not listed at WP:VG/RS and appears to be a fan blog. I do not believe it is reliable, but if someone else has additional information then please bring it forward. Indrian (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the one site I've been trying to get rid of. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it really considered necessary to have this information about the South Korean launch? That's all the scanlines source is for, and you'd be surprised how hard it is to find a reliable source for a specialty release only in South Korea (anyone speak Korean? For whatever reason this is even harder than finding info for Tectoy's Brazil releases). What makes Brazil unique is that Brazil has had a sustained interest in the Mega Drive, but there's not anything to indicate the same interest exists in South Korea. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

^Above comment redacted. I found citations to a pair of Korean gaming magazines which will at least be enough to mention Samsung's distribution of the console and both its "Super Gam*Boy" and "Super Aladdin Boy" names. Therefore, I've replaced both of the blogs with the magazines. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Console wars[edit]

  • This seems an unusual title for a section - would "Initial success" be better?
The marketshare battle between Sega and Nintendo in the 16-bit era has often been referred to as a "war" in reliable sources, leading to the term "console war" becoming a standard term for any fierce marketshare battle in the video game industry. I personally find the term appropriate for this reason, but am open to more input. Indrian (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Console Wars is fine too, but more because I am comparing it to the Super NES article. (comparing it because that is a Featured Article so has been a model of style to initially follow).--SexyKick 21:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Part of why this section was called "Console wars" is because there used to be a "console wars" article that was redirected to History of video games. That goes for the SNES article too, but that article doesn't exist anymore. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I've always kinda thought "Console Wars" was an odd, rather comical title for this section (and the same one in SNES). The whole section really has much more to do with Sega vs. Nintendo than with Genesis vs. SNES - it just happened to be those two consoles over which the companies were fighting (and thus why this should be at least partly covered here). I'd like to suggest a different name for the section, tho - "Initial Success" doesn't strike me as accurate, but perhaps "Advertising blitz against Nintendo" might cover it pretty well. (If we adopt this one, then I'd vote for making the same change in SNES to "Advertising blitz against Sega".) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not really just advertising, though. It was sort of a whole new train of thought for marketing the systems altogether: Kalinske's razor and blades model, combined with the suggestion to sell Sonic the Hedgehog on day one as a pack-in title wasn't just "advertising", it was proper marketing that sold many more Genesis units. I'd like to propose "Worldwide marketing" as a suggestion. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
How about "Aggressive marketing" or "Aggressive marketing campaign"? It's the same general idea, but the thing that was notable about all this was specifically how the two companies were directly attacking each other via ads and placement on a scale not seen before in the industry. This point in the industry is really the best-known and most remarkable of all "console wars" that have happened, and it set a few precedents, and Sega arguably "won" in terms of having more people remember its marketing campaigns, even though the Genesis ultimately lost the majority market share to the SNES. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I would be okay with "Aggressive marketing". Or "Genesis does what Nintendon't". (Just kidding on the last bit.) Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 00:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems a little bit off for what the section talks about. How about something along the lines of "Competition with Nintendo". Interestingly the chapter in Kent's book that refers to these things is called "The War" if I recall.--SexyKick 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Is "Sega of America" the correct title to use here?
Yes. Sega of America was the official name of the console market subsidiary of Sega Enterprises in North America. Not to be confused with Sega Enterprises USA, which was the arcade market subsidiary. Indrian (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "the developed a four-point plan:" - the following clauses should be semicolons, not commas
  •  Done "Due to the Genesis' head start, much larger library" - should be "a much larger library"
  •  Done "it was able to secure an estimated 60% of the American 16-bit console market by June 1992." - this is cited to a findarticles.com URL, which no longer work
Changed to magazine source.--SexyKick 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Sega farms out Genesis. Television Digest. 1998-03-02" - this reference needs more information
See 32-bit era section.--SexyKick 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade[edit]

  •  Done""PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD."." - per MOS:ALLCAPS, this can probably be in lower case as normal without losing encyclopedic value, plus there's duplicate punction at the end
For Keith Moon's FA review, we went with the {{smallcaps}} template Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
All right, I can dig small caps as a nice little in-between option. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done References to "Kent, "The Legal Game", p. 384" are a little confusing - although not required for GA, consider using {{sfn}}, {{refbegin}}, {{refend}} and Harvard referencing for books as it makes navigating references slightly easier and more flexible. I can have a look at these if you want.
  • Shouldn't be too hard to fix. I took those from Sega v. Accolade where it was suggested I use a different referencing format because it was cited so many times and they wanted page numbers for each citation. It shouldn't be too hard to make this conform to the rest. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've changed the Kent citations over to full ones to avoid confusion. Templates will be something I'll have to look at in the future; as I've only been active on Wikipedia really for a few months after a five-year retirement, I'm still getting readjusted to the many ways things like citations can be formatted and handled in articles. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "On August 28, 1992, the Ninth Circuit overturned" - this reference is behind a paywall (as are several other sources in this area). Don't know if this is a problem or not
They are newspaper article pulled from Newsbank. Its no less valid a source for that, and the bibliographic information is accurate. No different than a print source not being available online for general perusal. Note that this section is a nearly direct copy from the Sega v. Accolade article, which gained FA status with those sources. Indrian (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Videogame Rating Council and Congressional hearings on video game violence[edit]

  •  Done Confusing mention of the Sega CD - it's defined later in another section
  • I appreciate this is using summary style, but I think the text relating to Night Trap on the Sega CD is off-topic for this article (though the information about Mortal Kombat isn't)
    • Night Trap is actually central to the congressional hearings - many of the people involved in those hearings pointed to the "scantily clad women" and the infamous bathroom scene as evidence that game producers were promoting violence against and sexual exploitation of women. Basically, Night Trap and Mortal Kombat were taken together as a sort of one-two punch to the industry. Unfortunately for this topic, you really can't discuss the hearings without mentioning both games. (I don't want to make myself sound too self-important, but I have specialized knowledge of this topic - my father was on the Night Trap development team.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "In 1993, American media began to ..... receiving unprecedented media scrutiny" - don't need the second "media"
  • "Questions were even raised in the UK Parliament about its suitability" - in which instance, you should be able to find a verbatim transcript in the United Kingdom Hansard. I'm not sure what terms or dates to search for, but maybe you can help. This would be a good source to add to the article.
  •  Done "Parents and senators alike were outraged by the level of graphic violence depicted in the arcade version of the game" is a little vague. I don't think every parent was outraged, this sounds like something the Daily Mail would print, to be honest! I doubt Frank Zappa (had he been alive), a parent of four, would have batted an eyelid.
    • Reworked that whole portion of the section - for this point in particular, it now mentions how Nintendo responded to "public outcry" - this accurately reflects the nature of the commentary against the game without trying to be too specific. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Is 1up.com a reliable source?
1up.com has been recognized by the Video Game Project of Wikipedia as a reliable source, as it is a news site run by a media company that began as an online companion for a reputable print magazine and features both editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See WP:VG/RS for more details. Indrian (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done The large quote from Howard Lincoln is unreferenced
  • I think the second paragraph is a bit too long. All we need to get across is that a game had an unlockable "adult mode", Nintendo's equivalent didn't, and it was controversial. You can probably trim the information down a bit - any pertinent facts should move to Mortal Kombat or other respective articles. Trimming the above unreferenced quote would help towards this.
    • I really wanted to keep this because it makes quite a bit of mention over the Nintendo/Sega rivalry and the controversy over rating systems, including the VRC that Sega used in this era. If you feel it's in the wrong spot, though, I'd be glad to move it to Night Trap. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the bulk of the prose should go in Night Trap, though you still need a summary of it here, just not quite as much as what's there now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Didn't Doom have something to do with all of this?
Actually, no. Doom was released in December 1993 just as the hearings were getting started, so it did not really factor into the whole ratings debate despite being a controversial game. Doom's presence was more keenly felt during the 1999 hearings after the Columbine shootings after the game received a lot of publicity because it had been a favorite of the shooters in that incident. Indrian (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

32-bit era and beyond[edit]

  •  Done "Nintendo took in 42 percent of the video game market dollar share with no next gen system" - what does "next gen system" mean?
I think I clarified this, but let me know if you still think it is a problem. Indrian (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Nakayama's decision undercut the Sega of America executives; CEO Tom Kalinske," - this probably wants to be a new sentence starting at "CEO"
Really, this whole thought needs to be tweaked for accuracy. He did not become "uninterested in the business;" he found most of his authority stripped away due to the difficulties the company was experiencing and grew uninterested in being a powerless figurehead. Indrian (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Sega farms out Genesis. Television Digest. 1998-03-02." - what is this reference? If a magazine, it needs a page number
It was an online source for sometime, taken from an article in a magazine, sort of like findarticles.com's stuff was. There was no page number listed when it was online. this page uses it as a source, and says it was an article in Consumer Electronics. Hm, actually managed to find the article here.--SexyKick 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Is allgame.com a reliable source?
Allgame has, I believe, a sort of borderline or quasi notability and is usually sourced for game credits rather then for substantive information. I would hesitate to use it as a source here. When I am back with my research materials, I will attempt to provide a better source. Indrian (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It is listed on WP:VG/S as reliable, and not as reliable only in certain situations. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I still find that allgame sometimes contains mistakes and is not as well-developed as its sister site, allmusic. Anyway, I know this is mostly minor quibbling, but I swapped out the allgame reference for a Gamasutra reference regarding the Genesis 3. Indrian (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
That'll work. Gamasutra might be able to say more about the Genesis 3 than Allgame could anyway. Surprisingly, I had a tough time trying to find anything that said anything about the Genesis 3 and had any assertion of reliability with my research, but I will admit that Gamasutra is not really a website I'm too familiar with. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical specifications[edit]

  •  Done "A 16/32-bit Motorola 68000 CPU is the main microprocessor of the Genesis," - should be the other way round ie: starting "The main microprocessor...."
  •  Done "while a Zilog Z80 is also included as a sub-CPU" - what does "sub-CPU" mean in this instance?
    • I don't know the answer to this myself. I changed this to refer to backwards compatibility, which the Z80 was required for, but I do not know if it had other functions as well. Someone with more technical knowledge will need to look at this. Indrian (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • The Z80 was also used to produce sound effects for Mega Drive/Genesis software - mostly for percussion sounds, brief voice clips, or anything else that required sampled sound as opposed to synthesized sound (the FM synth chip). IIRC, it also played a role in handling input from the controllers, but I'm less sure of that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Whilst it is true that the Z80 and PSG provided Master System backwards compatibility and both were used in 16-bit mode to produce extra channels (e.g. percussive 'noise') in addition to the FM synth's 6 channels, the PSG was not the sole playback method of PCM samples as implied in the article text, and above. The YM2612's sixth channel was indeed capable and was used to playback 8-bit resolution, higher quality PCM compared to that of the PSG which was, practically, limited to 4-bit resolution (or 1-bit PWM). 118.210.63.208 (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
          • I addressed this by generalizing the statement to say how the Z80 controlled both chips to produce different kinds of sound, without trying to be too specific. Thanks for the notes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "The original model of the Mega Drive" - presumably meaning the Japanese version?
    • More likely this means the Model 1, as opposed to the Model 2 redesign.KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I was partially right. That passage really did mean the Japanese Model 1 specifically - the North-American Model 1 Genesis combined the video and FM chips into a single custom chip, and that chip was then used in all Model 2s worldwide. Prose has been clarified. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done The "SegaSpecs" reference looks like it has some malformed brackets on it
  •  Done "For audio, the system utilizes FM, PSG, and PCM sound source" - can you define what the acronyms mean, so a user doesn't have to click on a link to work out what they are
    • I don't think we need to go into depth on what these things actually are or what they do - we link to the appropriate articles for a reason. However, the prose has been cleaned up and made more accurate - FM and PCM are both ways of producing sound, while the PSG is a physical chip that produces sound. The concepts were mixed incorrectly before. (Definitions follow, for reference.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • FM = Frequency Modulation
      • PSG = Programmable Sound Generator
      • PCM = Pulse-Code Modulation
  •  Done "as well as an RF Out port and A/V Out adapter ports for video signal" - this bit needs clarifying. A non techie won't understand that RF is for an older television. By A/V, do you mean RCA jack sockets?
    • Just a technical note here: The Model 1 Mega Drive/Genesis has a proprietary connector for the A/V out - a round 3/4" (or 1") plug with 5 pins that stem out to 2 RCA connectors (1 composite video, 1 mono audio). These days, it's difficult to find compatible cables for this connector. The Model 2 replaced that connector with standard RCA outputs for composite video and stereo audio. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "The system's games are in ROM cartridge format and are inserted in the top of the system" - don't need second "system", "inserted at the top" should suffice
  •  Done "… and can display up to 32 colors at once …" - this should read 64. Aside from this being widely known and published in Sega's 16-bit marketing literature of the era, the 315-5313A shown on the mainboard in this section of the article (once referred to as the YM7101, referenced in the article text), whilst still known as the VDP should not be confused with the spec of its predecessor in the Master System. 118.210.63.208 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • My understanding was that the system as a whole supported 32 colors at once, and in one special drawing mode there was a limited gamma channel that could apply a single shade to each pixel, effectively producing a second 32-color palette where each color index was controlled by that of the main palette (eg. if the gamma channel was 50% black, then a white entry in the main palette would be grey in the sub-palette, and changing the white entry would also change the grey entry automatically). The VDP itself had to support 64 simultaneous colors to do that, of course, but I thought the hardware using it was limited to 32 colors on-screen due to its design. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, those details are probably too technical to be relevant for this article. I'll switch it to 64 - the original prose claimed it could do 512 colors at once, which was flatly incorrect (512 was the total color palette the system could choose from). Thanks for the correction. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Peripherals[edit]

  •  Done "The standard Mega Drive controller features three main buttons and a "start" button usually used for pausing mid-game." - surely it also starts a game, otherwise it's an unusually named button!
  •  Done "The controller itself has a distinctive rounded shape" - distinctive to whom?
  • "similar to the design of buttons on arcade fighting games" - an example might be useful here
  •  Done "Sega also released the Remote Arcade System" - this needs a little clarification. Presumably this was the standard controller, just without any plug-in cable
"Wireless controller" is a pretty standard phrase. I personally think this is perfectly clear in context, though I added a wikilink for anyone who needs a dicdef on that. Indrian (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Since no further objections have been raised, I am going to mark this one as done. Always happy to revisit, of course. Indrian (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "The Genesis and Mega Drive are also backwards compatible with the Master System" - wikilink backward compatibility
  •  Done "The first peripheral released for the system, the Power Base Converter allows" - wants a comma between "Converter" and "allows"
  • "A second model, the Master System Converter 2, was released only in Europe for use with the Mega Drive II" - this is the first use of the term "Mega Drive II" in this section. With this in mind, I wonder if it's worth pulling "Variations" up to sit before this section?
  • "A number of other peripherals for the Mega Drive were released that add extra functionality." - presumably they were also released in the US for the Genesis too?
    • Some were, some weren't. It might be out of scope to delineate all the peripherals for all regions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Is sega-16.com a reliable source?
  • I agree, due to the staff members having works published, and because the sites content is also featured in sites like Gamefaqs, and Gamerankings.--SexyKick 03:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "The light beams are easily distorted by a non-flat ceiling or obstructions such as blades of a ceiling fan or light fixture" - why is this important?
  •  Done "the peripheral's price point also contributed to the its lack of success" - grammar problem here, extra "the"
    • On both of these last two, I reworked that whole section to flow more easily. A lower level of detail that should fully explain what the device was meant to do and that it was a commercial failure both because it was unreliable and costly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Internet services[edit]

  •  Done "The Genesis utilized a number of Internet-based services" ... "As well as first-party Internet gaming" - to me, "internet" means something communicating via TCP/IP, and I can't see evidence that this did. I suggest renaming this to "Network services".
    • TCP/IP isn't a solid requirement of Internet gaming - in fact, many systems use UDP (one-way, non-redundant packets) to communicate since it's less expensive. That said, all of the Genesis/MD services were modem-based and went through systems similar in nature to AOL/Compuserve, as opposed to being Internet-wide. (These services also predated popular adoption of the Internet by several years.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up this section to make it flow better, and renamed it "Network services" to better reflect the technology being used at the time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Game library[edit]

  •  Done "but eventually contained games that appealed to all types of gamers" - see if you can removed the repetition of "game" in this sentence
  • "Sonic the Hedgehog and its sequel, Sonic the Hedgehog 2, would become the Genesis' top sellers, followed by Aladdin" - the source given implies Aladdin sold more than Sonic the Hedgehog (I)
Yeah, and that IGN article is full of inaccuracies. It probably should not be used. Also, there have never been any complete lists of Genesis game sales figures released through reliable sources, so the IGN author just trolled the Internet (probably wikipedia's own best-selling games list) and assumed an absolute sales ranking based on incomplete data. While the sales figures themselves are mostly solid, this should probably be reworded to expunge references to sales ranking. Indrian (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sega Virtua Processor[edit]

  •  Done I wouldn't spend too much time focusing on what the NES and the SNES do, it's off topic
    • I reworked that section to give more context about the general concept of adding processors to game carts as a way to improve graphics, then split the SVP into its own paragraph so that the reader gets better context about Sega's attempt to compete. It's necessary to understand what was going on with Nintendo's games to understand the motivation for the SVP. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Add-ons[edit]

Sega CD[edit]

  •  Done "rushed to complete CD-ROM peripherals for the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo Entertainment System, respectively" - SNES has already been defined, the acronym will suffice
    • Nintendo never released a CD peripheral for the SNES, actually - they had started on one, but they were to have contracted with Sony for it, and Sony instead decided to develop their own console (the PlayStation), which seriously hurt their relationship with Nintendo in the process. That is one of several reasons why Nintendo waited all the way to the GameCube to release a disc-based system, far behind everyone else by that point. (But that is out of scope for this article - the important point is that Nintendo was not present in the CD-console world at that time - it's incorrect to say they were.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not quite accurate. Nintendo and Sony entered into an agreement in 1988 for joint development of a CD peripheral for the SNES and a Sony branded system that would integrate the SNES and CD-ROM (exactly like how Sega partnered with JVC for the Mega-CD and the JVC branded Wondermega). In 1991, Nintendo pulled out of the deal because Hiroshi Yamauchi decided that the original contract gave Sony too much control over the software for the CD system. Nintendo then entered a new relationship with Sony's largest competitor in the CD space, Philips, to develop the CD peripheral, which is why the CD-I got some crappy Zelda games. Ken Kutaragi and Norio Ohga at Sony felt so angry and humiliated by this turn of events that they decided to create the Sony Playstation. Ultimately, Nintendo did not release a peripheral, most likely due to a combination of piracy concerns, the failure of the Sega and NEC CD systems in the marketplace, and the need to shift their focus to next-gen hardware development. It is accurate to say, however, that Nintendo was at one time scrambling to create a CD system, and both Nintendo and its third parties were actively locking up games like 7th Guest, Myst, and Sewer Shark (before Sega got it obviously) for release on the CD system that never materialized. I would personally not change this sentence. Indrian (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'll see about getting something in there about that - Sega definitely wanted to beat Nintendo to the market, but at planning time wouldn't have known that Nintendo wouldn't release its own add-on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "and added internal RAM to save data" - this needs clarification, "save data" can also mean writing files to disk
    • The bit about internal RAM for saving data is technically incorrect (and so is the source): The Sega CD itself adds RAM specifically for providing larger scratch memory for games, but not to save game data (its RAM is still volatile). Instead, an external cartridge was available that provided non-volatile RAM storage for save data, and only a handful of games supported it - you'd put this data storage cart in the Genesis cartridge slot, and the game in question could detect whether it was present. Some games only supported storing a high-score table on it, while others used it for checkpoints and configuration data. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Tech note, btw: The video buffering and decompression technology used in Night Trap, Sewer Shark and pretty much all of Digital Pictures' FMV games depends pretty much exclusively on the Sega CD's RAM, and uses nearly all of it just for video tasks. The Genesis video RAM continued to be used for the actual display, with the CD program in this case feeding the decoded tile data to the console piece by piece. You'd be amazed by how hot that data bus was getting. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, but games like Sonic CD, their progress could be saved directly onto the Sega CD just like the Sega Saturn. You didn't need the save cart. I've changed the wording to use the sources wording, please let me know if this is sufficient.--SexyKick 20:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't see how that's possible, considering the Sega CD's RAM wasn't battery-backed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't really know how it's possible either. Especially considering my Saturn's battery has died twice (so I lost all my knife only Resident Evil playthrough saves) and my Sega CD still has my Sonic CD time attack scores and "continue" option which starts me on the last level. There's also the backup option, which lets you choose to either save to the Sega CD or a would-be ram cart (which I don't have).--SexyKick 20:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Here are some screenshots of the copy data interface of the Sega CD (model 1), and I'm also reading on forums that there is a battery in the system.--SexyKick 20:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
              • Ah, gotcha. Okay, thanks for clarifying - I'll make sure to get that back into the new version of the prose I put up (which addressed the whole section). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Statement more accurately states what the save RAM was used for, and also mentions the external cart.
  •  Done "Sega announced the release of the Mega-CD in Japan for late 1991" - does this mean it was announced in 1991, or was announced earlier for a release in late 1991?
I just took this sentence out. Since both the US and Japanese versions were launched within the periods initially announced and did not suffer from any meaningful delays or other problems that need to be covered in regards to these initially announced dates, the actual release dates are sufficient in my mind. Indrian (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Factors impacting these sales included the high launch price of the Mega-CD in Japan" - don't need to mention "Mega-CD" or "Japan" again, "its high launch price" will do
    • Post-facto note: The launch price was seen as exorbitant in the US too, so generalizing this sentence gives proper weight to NA. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sega 32X[edit]

  •  Done "Despite the success of the Sega Genesis in 1994," - why is 1994 specifically mentioned here?
The 32X project was conceived in early 1994 as a way for Sega to compete against the Atari Jaguar and the more sophisticated games Nintendo released using the SuperFX chip. The article is attempting to convey that Genesis remained a market success in 1994 but was beginning to lag technically. With the release date of its next generation system, the Saturn, still in doubt at this point a plan was implemented to extend the life of the Genesis with the 32x add on. A nice thing about having an outsider look over an article like this is that even though this context seems clear to me, I am knowledgeable about the subject and may be mentally filling in some of those blanks myself. If you still believe the article does not adequately convey the importance of discussing 1994 in this context, I would be happy to take a pass at fixing this. Indrian (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No, this was just some bad grammar that led me to misparse the sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "when compared to its main rival, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System" - "when compared to the SNES" will do here
  •  Done "third-party developers" already wikilinked earlier

Variations[edit]

  •  Done There is currently a merge proposal to integrate the spinout article back into this one
  •  Done "The Mega Drive" - as before, not the Genesis?
    • The majority of the recognized variants of this console were made in regions where the console was called the Mega Drive. I think it's appropriate to keep it named as such in this section. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree. Unless each mention can be quantified with "European" or "Japanese", then swapping between "Genesis" and "Mega Drive" seemingly arbitrarily mid-article will confuse the reader. GA quality prose must be consistent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive."--SexyKick 17:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Trademark Security System has already been mentioned (though see comment about about moving this section to earlier). I also think some if not all of this section could be moved to the "History" or "Peripherals" section
  • I'll take out the opening paragraph. Thought it was worth a mention since some Model 1s have it and others don't, but if the earlier coverage is sufficient to say that, I'll mention it. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "as well as move the RF Out switch to the RF unit" - what RF unit?
  •  Done "The AC adapter was also changed from a 1.2A model to a 0.85A model" - why is this important to mention?
    • Changed to mention that the Model 2 required less power. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "The new model measures 220mm wide, 212mm deep, and 59mm high." Units should be provided for both metric and imperial. Pick one main set, put the other in brackets, and be consistent with it. Also applies elsewhere in the article
  • Is the exact size of the unit important? This is an encyclopedia article, not a specs sheet. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not vitally important, but if you include a measurement, use a conversion. See the {{convert}} template for how to do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Reworked this section to say the Model 2 was smaller and lighter than the original console, without mentioning specific dimensions. On the Sega Nomad, I applied the unit conversion to the size of the LCD screen. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Also, Amstrad manufactured the Mega PC" - what's a "Mega PC"? (first mention in this article)
I combined and rearranged a couple of sentences to try to make it clear that both the MSX computers and the Amstrad computer mentioned in the article are standard PCs with an integrated Mega Drive. If you still think this is unclear, we can try something else. Indrian (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Since no further objections have been raised, I am going to mark this one as done. Always happy to revisit, of course. Indrian (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done "Since the discontinuation of the Genesis" - "since" should read "after"
As a further note here, I do not believe the AtGames consoles should be listed as a "variation." That company uses modern components and then emulates the features of the particular console in software. Its really no different than running a game emulator on a PC; they just put a fancy case and a controller around it. Indrian (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
More and more this seems like semantics. I'll ask for a quick consensus on that, but we can remove it. If we do, I'll suggest we move the picture of the Firecore down to the section it's mentioned in at the end, and replace its image with one of the Sega Genesis CDX (which oops, not sure how or why I managed a Multi-Mega picture but not a CDX one). Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Strike that last part, I'm thinking the wrong table (d'oh!) If we had a free picture of the Aiwa knockoff, that would be awesome for that spot, but we don't have one that I know of. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Legacy and revival[edit]

  • "The Sega Genesis and Mega Drive has often been considered among the best video game consoles ever produced" ... but the sources then go onto rank it at #5 or #6. "among the best" implies at least several #1 positions in the list. I'd tone this wording down a bit
I am personally uncomfortable with this entire paragraph. I do not think it adds anything useful to the article. There are better ways to acknowledge the enduring appeal of the system. Indrian (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's okay, since the Super NES article has a paragraph like that, and it's an FA. But...I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it.--SexyKick 22:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Are gametrailers.com, GamingExcellence and GameDaily reliable sources? Even if they are, I think we should be able to get better quotes from the national broadsheets as to its true popularity (and I don't doubt it was hugely popular, so it ought to be possible)
I agree that using these sources is a mistake. Indrian (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It'd be nice if we can replace them, but GameDaily is listed on WP:VG/S as reliable. Gametrailers also is. GamingExcellence I can't vouch for one way or another. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think mentioning its popularity (as documented in reliable sources and in a neutral tone) should go in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-releases and emulation[edit]

  • This whole section, bar the final two paragraphs, seems to have sourcing problems, going to either self-published or primary sources. I think it needs sorting out. If a Genesis emulator isn't documented reliably, it isn't notable, and it doesn't need to be mentioned here. The Radica Games console ought to be citable to a better source (and if not, Radica Games is a prime candidate for AfD)
    • Is it just worth removing the entire section on emulation? 10 to 1, I'm willing to bet a lot of emulation won't have a lot of media coverage because it's generally frowned upon (kind of like torrenting software or Limewire: has legitimate uses, but is just full of copyright violation potential). It's not my favorite section of the article, either. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You can mention that emulators exist, but only mention specific types if reliable sources document them. I don't think we need a complete cull of this section but it does need to be trimmed down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Later new releases[edit]

A watermelon, yesterday
  • I think this section could start with just a summary of what it's about. Particularly attention might be given to new releases being English translations of old Japanese games
  • "In their 100th blog post, WaterMelon announced that Pier Solar is about to have another production run" - is this blog reliable?
    • It's WaterMelon's blog, as far as I'm aware.
Uh, huh - and who's Watermelon? Watermelon talks about the fruit, and Watermelon (disambiguation) doesn't have an entry for a blogger or any similar term. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • WaterMelon is the developer of the game, so the blog qualifies as a primary source. Is that sufficient for this purpose, or does that worsen the issue here? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's not, there is an IGN source, too. That being said, I can see how this section could be reduced to a little bit about Super Fighter Team's releases, and another sentence about Pier Solar. I'm seeing now how this section could be quite a bit smaller, as not all of it is necessarily relevant to Genesis. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sales notes[edit]

  • This has been extensively covered on the talk page. I'll trust you all to come to a sensible conclusion ;-)

Images[edit]

  •  Done File:VirtuaRacing.PNG has a fair-use rationale against Mega Drive, which is a redirect. Its caption "The graphics in Virtua Racing were comparable to those of Star Fox" doesn't mean much to anything who hasn't played those two games - perhaps just comparable to hardware or other console models would be better?
  • I've tweaked it to use the chip names instead of the game names. Do you think I should leave the wording as "were comparable to" or should I use the sources wording "the graphics (from the SVP) could hold their own again (the Super FX chip)" ?--SexyKick 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think making a direct comparison to Star Fox is appropriate - Virtua Racing is probably the best known SVP game, and Star Fox is arguably the best-known SuperFX chip. The context in that section of the article should make it clear that the SVP was designed to directly compete with the SuperFX, the Atari Jaguar, and the upcoming Nintendo 64. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I fixed the fair-use rationale - it's now pointing to this article (instead of the redirect) and is more complete. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done File:Gens Windows Screenshot.png doesn't seem to show much of interest, and really needs a game to be running to give value to the reader. Are there any games at all that are PD, or is every single one copyrighted?
    • One problem with emulator screenshots is that, unless you do like this one did and show the emulator's UI (which is usually not very interesting on its own, like you mentioned), it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between a game screenshot taken from a good capture device on the original hardware, and one taken from the emulator in question. If there's a significant enough difference between an emulator screen and the original hardware, that usually means there are significant flaws in the emulator that are likely to reduce its notability. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't mind not having an emulator screenshot. Do we think one is needed?--SexyKick 22:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I doubt it. The UI presented there could have been created by any program. There's absolutely nothing in it that specifically identifies it as a Genesis emu, and I doubt we'll find one that meets our notability standards AND is visually interesting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Taking the picture out would seem to be the best solution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Removed.--SexyKick 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done File:VRC MA-17.JPG's caption could do with explaining its relevance, ie: Mortal Kombat as released on the console
    • Updated to read "V.R.C. MA-17 rating (as applied to Mortal Kombat for the Genesis)" — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Mortal Kombat had an MA-13 rating. Sega got away with that rating because of the Blood Code, so the game appeared to be tamer than an MA-17 game. (and of course, they were in charge of the rating system).--SexyKick 23:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Ah, then do we have a proper image for MA-13 instead of MA-17? Or do we have a good example of an MA-17 game? MA-13 would be better IMO because we can still apply it to Mortal Kombat, as opposed to some possibly obscure game that doesn't figure into the section as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Yep, we had an MA-13 image, which I've swapped in and changed the caption to note it was used on Mortal Kombat. It's the same image used on Videogame Rating Council. Only thing I really don't like about it is for whatever reason the MA-13 image seems to be fuzzier and not as sharp or as clear as the GA or MA-17 ones. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done File:Mega Drive mboard.jpg's caption could do with expanding. PAL is jargon - would "European" do instead? (I know France doesn't use PAL which makes the caption not quite true)
    • Updated to read "European Mega Drive mainboard". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done File:Xbands.gif could be cropped as the SNES is off-topic

And that's it[edit]

A hedgehog, yesterday. He isn't blue, he doesn't wear red sneakers, he doesn't collect rings, and he doesn't live in the Green Hill Zone.

And that's it. There's quite a bit to sort out here, including investigating some references and some copyediting. However, there appears to be a dedicated team behind this article to sort it all out, so I think a pass is possible with some further work. With that in mind, I'm putting the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Question, what is stopping this from being, or rather, what more would need to be done, to make this an FA review? It doesn't seem much different than the process the SNES FA review went through.--SexyKick 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Two thoughts from my side of the peanut gallery: First, there's still the question of whether we're going to assess the article's title again - we would definitely not want to make this article an FA and then redirect it to another title. And second, I think FA has a stronger requirement for the article to be stable. But I'm not a GA/FA expert. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh jeez, this has by far and away, got to be the LONGEST GA review I've ever seen... Compare this to the GA review given to me for the FA Sega v. Accolade, lol. That being said, I'm not bothered by the long list of notes; it's just going to make the FA candidacy later on a lot better. I will admit, before we begin because there are so many involved here, that I do feel a little bit of WP:OWN for this article, as this is now the fourth GA review I've taken this article to—although the first in five years—, I rewrote the entire article quite recently, I'm the #2 contributor to the article in edit count (SexyKick is #1, and I applaud his awesome efforts in maintaining this article), and I'm sort of the sole remaining active member of the long-deceased WP:SEGA, to which this is one of the most important articles to the task force. That being said, I know the policies well and I'll try not to let this bother me as I go through the notes step by step. SexyKick, to answer your question, an FA review requires submission at WP:FAC, which will need consensus to promote, as well as image and source reviews (I also had to have a source spotcheck on Sega v. Accolade), and then the final check by one of the FA commissioners. Part of the benefit of doing a GA review first is that it lets us weed out any remaining issues and resolve all of that before starting an FA nom. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The reviewer of Talk:Sega v. Accolade/GA1 should be trout slapped - a recent discussion thread of WT:GAN explains why I find "rubber stamping" reviews like that with zero feedback unacceptable. The FA review for it is okay though, as I see a number of the "usual suspects" at FAC have had a look and supported it. Also, as you say yourself, this is a high profile article, much more than Sega v. Accolade, so there's more work required to address the GA criteria as the subject matter is broader. Although I've made many comments, I see a number of them have already been closed down, so it looks like progress is clearly being made. Keep it up! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think a {{whale}} might be more appropriate in that case... but I was confident enough myself that it met the standards, and I pretty much almost immediately sent it to FAC after that. I'm actually surprised how this GA review has generated so much interest in editing this article for a change instead of bickering over the name... that's actually the first time in, like, ever, lol. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You serve as a good role model, Phoenix. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm hoping we can all follow him to the other Sega articles relating to this one to achieve a Featured Topic. There are only six more by my count.--SexyKick 20:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks, SexyKick, but if we have to do all the games as well, we're really stuck. Not sure how they'd define that line, but if we did, List of Mega Drive games lists over 900 games alone, and then add 40 Sega 32X games and 220 Sega CD games... yikes. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I was wrong about six.--SexyKick 05:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What's left?[edit]

All right, it's been a couple of days. We've made amazing progress and a lot of changes. Aside from general cleanup and copyediting, we need to get some consensus on a couple of key points. Here's what's left:

  • Variations: there's a lack of consistency on the naming of the first and second models. We have sources to say Genesis II and Mega Drive II (though this may be confusing with Genesis III, which was the TMSS model), but is it enough to use that, or do we want to go with Model 1 and Model 2 throughout?
  • Variations: Does the AtGames Firecore belong in the Variations, Legacy, or not in the article at all?
    • I'm for keeping the Firecore. It was the first time Sega had officially licensed a new system to run Genesis cartridges. And the 2012 revision of it is called the Sega Genesis Classic, comes with two wireless controllers, and 80 built in games. I think it's fairly notable due to them getting the backing of Sega on it. It wouldn't really be notable otherwise. I think it's really just the emulation sources that are possibly unreliable there, right? The Legacy stuff he brought up earlier with Gametrailers/Gamedaily we checked out.--SexyKick 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sales figures: solid answer? I'm still not sold on the summative number as an answer; given our discussion of 29 million being too low and the sums being OR, I think we almost have to go with 35 million as the number. Also, can we really say much about the lack of figures without anything that says Sega never released a figure? Every source I've seen emphasizes it's an estimate, not an absolute.
  • Legacy: I'm going to start stripping some of this out, but what should stay and what should go, I could use a hand with.

Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  • The other major problem I see is the game library section. The Buchanan IGN article is, to put it succinctly, full of it when it claims to reveal the best-selling games on the system. There have not been figures released for most Genesis games, so he was just looking at what sales figures existed and making unsupportable claims. We do not have figures for Mortal Kombat (it sold over 6 million copies worldwide, but there is no break out of the Genesis figures specifically) or for any of the EA sports games, for example, which could have easily outsold Aladdin. And speaking of EA Sports games, they should probably be mentioned more prominently in the game library section as well. There is a general consensus that getting in early on the Genesis with a sweetheart licensing deal is what made EA the company it is today (or, at least, the company it was six or seven years ago). Overall though, things are looking good, and we are definitely getting close. Indrian (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
On naming for "Console II" vs. "Model 2", I see that we have some sources calling the console "Genesis II", but AFAIK that's both an unofficial, colloquial name and a misnomer - it would suggest that the new version was a significant upgrade to the original version (like going from PlayStation to PlayStation 2). I honestly think it's misleading to call it that unless our sources are certain this was an official name from Sega. If not, I would rather we refer to it as the Model 2 to indicate it was a second revision of the original console and not a whole new one. (We do know that "Genesis 3" was the official name of the third-party unit produced after Sega discontinued its first-party production, so no problems there - that's clearly marked and only used in one section.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I've viewed the sources myself, they're from a Sega service guide for for the second model, and its supplement. I haven't posted URLs because I'm pretty sure the links to where they're at on the internet is a copyright violation, but they're scanned from the paper versions of the service guides published by Sega. We also have the fact that "Mega Drive II" is stamped on the European version of the second model to support this (and "Mega Drive 2" on the Japanese version). I'm okay with either, but we should just pick one and stick with it across the article. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Things look generally in place for a pass, apart from "Re-release and emulation". The section looks better, but there's still too much stuff being referenced to possibly unreliable sources that needs sorting out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've given this a much-needed trim. The one source left that I used, GameSpy, is a defunct website that was run by IGN and also is listed at WP:VG/S, and basically I cut the cruft out so it just mentions that said emulators exist. We still have some upkeep measures and consistency edits to get, but as I can see it, we've really whipped this article into shape and fully weeded out the references. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
And hopefully that means we're done! (If I understand Ritchie correctly)--SexyKick 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're done - the article now meets the GA criteria and so I am marking the review as a pass. Well done everybody for an excellent collaborative effort. I've totted up an estimate of the annual readership of the article (and principal redirects) and it comes to more than 500,000, so the principal contributors to getting this to GA status each can have a half million award. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo! Congratulations! I'm updating the article FAQ now to reflect this work and the potential for a new consensus discussion on the title, as a result of the various title issues having been addressed in various ways. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)