This article is about the Sega Saturn, a video game console that was released during a period of significant upheaval in the industry. 3D gaming hit its stride and Sony's PlayStation shifted the paradigm with unprecedented mainstream success, but for every successful gamble there were those that didn't pan out. Certain companies and genres fell by the wayside, as they failed to foresee the threat posed by the admittedly rudimentary early 3D games. The Nintendo 64 stuck with cartridges over CDs and lost much of the third-party support Nintendo's previous systems had enjoyed. Although Sega's Saturn launched before the PlayStation and the Nintendo 64, and enjoyed moderate success in Japan due to the popularity of Sega's Virtua Fighter and a few RPGs exclusive to the Japanese market, the console's commercial failure was arguably the beginning of the end for Sega as a hardware manufacturer. The Saturn was a troubled system--tainted from birth by the last-minute addition of an extra video display processor to compete with Sony, rushed to launch in North America months before most software was ready, a catalyst for disagreement and division between the American and Japanese branches of Sega, abruptly discontinued to make way for the upcoming Sega Dreamcast--yet it is still revered by hardcore fans as perhaps Sega's finest hour as a game developer, and remains the subject of much debate over things Sega might have done differently.
This article has gone through a number of restructurings to reach the level of quality you see today. Indrian's thoughtful historical research and keen insight has assisted me in polishing Red Phoenix's Good Article to the point where it now surpasses the wildest expectations I had at the time of my first edit. It is my honor to submit Sega Saturn here for consideration as a FA, as I believe it fully satisfies all of Wikipedia's criteria for what a FA should be.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are you using more than one non-free logo for this system? Individually, File:SegaSaturnjp.png and File:SegaSaturn.png can work alone, but I don't think we need both the Japanese and International Logos
File:Sega-Saturn-Backup.jpg - The design is original enough to be copyrighted, and large enough that I doubt it counts as de minimis. We have previously kept File:Game-Genie-NES.jpg, which has a considerably smaller logo. That discussion mentions the ETS-HOKIN v. SKYY SPIRITS INC., though this doesn't quite help us as that label is considerably more simple. Nikkimaria, how do you feel about this one? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the image is needed at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. The backup cartridge isn't even mentioned in the article.
Personally, I'd make a collage of four images for the bottom one (it allows for a larger thumbnail and thus easier viewing). I'd cut the Model 2 controller. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that one of the four links used for the graph of Sega's financial trouble has died. If this is going to be a problem, I will gladly remove it. Because all of these images were here before I began involvement, I can't really say why both the Japanese and International logos are used, although I would speculate it may be related to the fact that the Saturn sold more units in Japan than the rest of the world combined.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel like it's standard practice in these articles to use the two major relevant logos. If only one is kept, I would say it should be the JP logo. But, ideally both should be there. (I have not contributed anything to this article, at least not that I recall). After I go through and do my images review on Sega CD, I'll take a look at this article and consider a review.--SexyKick 22:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the Genesis, it appears you are correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and yes; it would be great if you could remove the background from the Arcade Racer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey TTAAC, you know you can get link archives if a link dies on you, right? Even if the link is already dead, crawlers like web.archive.org might have an archived version of the page, or if it's a link from a publication, you could always remove the URL and cite just the publication itself if it's available in print. Just a thought. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 17:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but it seems that even the Wayback Machine stops working on occasion. I wouldn't feel comfortable citing a print version of Sega's 2002 Annual Report, because I've never seen it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Question - Did you let Red Phoenix know about this nomination? I mean he did help get this article to GA status. GamerPro64 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of this nomination. Total props to TTAAC and Indrian for fine work here. I'm too significant a contributor to support or oppose in my opinion, but not enough of one to take credit for the FAC nom at all - all of that goes to the nominating editor in this case. Depending on my available time, I may have a look and suggest some comments, however, given it's been some time since I've really looked it over. Also, quickly to TheTimesAreAChanging - congrats on your first FAC. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 16:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. This is my first time participating in a FAC, so please correct me if I make any mistakes. For the references I review, I will correct any minor issues myself. References that have issues that have not be addressed with be indicated with a bold "!". If there are multiple content issues with a source, I will indicate which instances of the citation have issues by using their letter designations. I have individually checked the content of each reference (unless otherwise noted).
Ref 1(!)(3 cites) - Added URL to online reprint of original article (reprinted with permission) hosted on Sega-16.com. The first two claims are fine, but third claim that "After the holiday season, however, interest in the 32X rapidly declined" is not supported by the citation. The article makes no mention of the 32X.
Ref 2 (!)(3 cites) - Missing page numbers. See last paragraph.
Ref 3 (!)(5 cites) - Added publication year.
a - supports the claim that "the release of a CD-based add-on for the Genesis, the Sega CD (known as Mega-CD outside of North America), had been commercially disappointing." While the article tangentially implies that the Sega CD was a commercial failure ("despite having some impressive titles...failed to catch on with the Sega faithful"), the article is almost exclusively about the Sega 32X (a different add-on for the Genesis) in conjuntcion with the Saturn. The only other mentions of the Sega CD's failure (which are also brief and tangential) cover it in terms of its bundle with the Genesis and use in conjunction with the 32X. The citation could easily be replaced with a source that more strongly supports the claim. Might also consider adding the failure of the 32X in with the Sega CD (since they're both peripherals for the Genesis that suffered from similar pitfalls).
b - the claim this supports is "... the Saturn's design was largely finished before the end of 1993," but the only mention in the cited article about the Saturn's timeline is for the release date (November 1994), not the when production was completed. The rest look good.
Ref 4 (1 cite) - Added year. Good.
Ref 5 (5 cites) - See last paragraph.
Ref 6 (17 cites) - This source is quite lengthy (11 separate URLs in total) and split up into discreet subsections with separate sub headings. Since it's cited so many times, and since only certain sections of it deal with the Saturn (the article overall is about the history of the Sega company), you might consider splitting it into two citations (pages six and eight are the only ones used) with individual page numbers to make this more easily accessible. In fact if this is acceptable, leave a comment letting me know and I'll do it myself since I'm now intimately familiar with the content. I've seen this type of splitting before in featured articles, but I don't know if it's standard practice. (For ease of reference later, I'm printing the page numbers for each instance here).
a - (pg 8) good.
b - (pg 6) good.
c - (pg 6) good.
d - (pg 8) the Virtua Fighter series is mentioned several times, but this is the only page where it's discussed in terms of the Saturn. There's no mention of the 1:1 ratio, but it does support the claim that Virtua Fighter was crucial to the Saturn. Looks tentatively good (pending content check of Refs 5, 22 and 23).
e - (pg 8) Source states "The initial shipment of 200,000 systems sold almost as fast as stores could get them on shelves." Our article says they sold out in the first day. Looks tentatively good (pending content check of Refs 5 and 22).
f through q - (pg 8) good.
Ref 7 (9 cites) - all good.
Ref 8 (!)(1 cite) - I'm fairly certain this quote is actually from the July 1994 (issue 1) issue of EGM2 , a spin off magazine EGM started up in 1994. As far as I can tell, the July 1994 (issue 60) of EGM does not contain the interview, but I can't seem to find a copy of EGM2. Either way, the citation is missing page and issue numbers.
Ref 9 - (!)(8 cites) - the quote on this one is rather lengthy.
a-g - all good.
h - The article states that "The Titan [ST-V] was not supported by Sega AM2's Yu Suzuki," but in the article, the only thing Suzuki says about this issue is "I think it will be hard to develop good software for the ST-V. It's not that I think the hardware is bad, but personally, I've got more interest in high-end machines. But because of the low price, ST-V will be Sega's new flagship hardware for the coin-op market." This seems like a weak support for the claim. At best, Suzuki was pessimistic about how the Titan would do, but I don't think this supports the claim that he did not support it. Maybe it's because 'not supported' in this context is a bit loose. Does it mean he was against it or that he simply thought it was a bad idea?
Ref 10 (1 cite) - good.
Ref 44 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
Ref 45 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
Ref 47 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
Ref 50 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
Ref 71 - added language parameter (page is in Japanese). Not checked for content.
Ref 72* - duplicate of ref 65, now merged.
Ref 111 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
Ref 121 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
Ref 123 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World is individually cited in refs 2, 5, 12, 18, 26, 30, 31, 37, 38, 40, 41, 48, 55, 106, and 111. These all cite different page numbers, and the eBook edition I obtained does not use the same page numbering system. I will post an addendum for the validity of these references after I obtain a hard copy from the library.
The date format on access/archive dates switched randomly between MONTH, DAY YEAR and YYYY-MM-DD. I've standardized to YYYY-MM-DD for all access and archive dates, since that seems to be the most common, and to MONTH, DAY YEAR for publication dates (since that is most common) per MOS:DATEUNIFY.
There is quite a bit of quoting in the citations. I'm not sure what our policy is on this, but the quote in ref 3 "Scot Bayless: The 32X call was made in early January  ... 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." This is definitely an interesting tidbit, but it doesn't do anything to further support of the claims in the article that the citation is used for. I haven't read the article in full, so maybe something like this is already incorporated, but if not, here's another quote from the article: "[Saturn] had the advantage of doing the rendering in hardware, but the rendering scheme also tended to create a lot of problems, and the pixel overwrite rate was very high; much of the advantage of dedicated hardware was lost to memory stalls. The X32, on the other hand, did everything in software but gave two fast RISC chips tied to great big frame buffers and complete control to the programmer." If this sort of comparison isn't already touched on in the article, it might be worthwhile to add it.
Question - Is it acceptable to link to a web.archive.org archive of a magazine issue? Some of the magazine prints I found were hosted there. It seems like this is a copy right violation on their end, but since we use them for other archives, I wasn't sure.
I'll post a second part with more content review (it takes a while to find and thoroughly check all this stuff) in a day or two. Please leave any comments below my signature, rather than commenting directly under bullet points. I will put a strike through any issues that are resolved. --chrisFjordson(talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ref 1-Fixed. I believe Red Phoenix meant to cite the 32X "Retroinspection" here.
Ref 2-I provided a different page number every single time I cited Kent. Red Phoenix preferred to use the name of the chapter he was citing, so the chapter could be referenced multiple times. That is why references 2, 18, 26, 38, 41, and 55 have a chapter name and no page numbers. If this is a problem, it would not be hard to add on what pages those chapters begin and end. However, I assume that Red Phoenix has used this format elsewhere, and that it was not an issue when Sega Genesis became a FA.
Ref 3-No comment on whether or not a source more specific to the Sega CD should be used for the first claim. The second claim is based on reference 11 (Next Generation), not reference 3. The Bayless quote from reference 3 is simply an additional piece of anecdotal evidence which complements Next Generation.
Ref 6-I believe your suggestion is acceptable, I just preferred to keep things simple by citing the source one time. While I cited several different sources on the popularity of Virtua Fighter, the 1:1 ratio is from reference 5 (Kent). Sold out on the first day is from reference 22 (Edge), but I wanted to include other sources that gave a similar account.
Ref 8-Fixed. Red Phoenix only added the source at Indrian's request (Indrian was doing the Good Article review), and didn't appear to have a copy himself, so it's easy to see how a minor mistake like that might have slipped in. Good catch!
Ref 9-What I meant was that Suzuki didn't develop any games for the ST-V, because of the reasons he gave in the article. (Suzuki's arcade games usually ran on the most expensive and state-of-the-art arcade boards available. The ST-V was supported mainly by Sega's least-talented developers.) If that explanation does not satisfy you, I am willing to rephrase the sentence.
As for the quoting in the citations, I don't believe it violates any policy. It's certainly my doing. I like including additional information to flesh out the claims in the main text, and wanted to include quotes especially from those sources that are not available online.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I actually just noticed the tidbit I mentioned in ref 3 is supported by ref 11 as I was checking it. For the first note on ref 3, it's not an actual problem, but if I find a stronger source as I'm checking references I'll switch it out. As for the quotes, when I said policy, I meant it informally. I literally didn't know when it was appropriate to use quotes but I don't have a problem with it. For ref 9, if you could clarify it in the article it would help. The current wording is a little vague.
Honestly, everything I've noticed so far has been pretty trivial; the references seem solid. I'm going to continue to comb through, but I don't foresee any problems on this end of the review. Nice job on the article, it looks good.--chrisFjordson(talk) 02:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I clarified the statement based on ref 9. Thank you very much for your time and insight; I look forward to the rest of your source review.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, here's part two (11-22). It was almost uniformally good, only minors issues, I've made any corrections necessary myself.
Ref 11 (8 cites) - all good.
Ref 12 (3 cites) - content review pending my obtaining a copy of the book from the library.
Ref 13 (1 cite) - good.
Ref 14 (20 cites) - Noted pages for ease of reference. I'd also like to split this up into individual pages if that's ok. Fixed date format. All good!
a, f, h, i, n, p, q, s, t - (page 4) good
b, c, d, e, m - (page 2) good
g - (page 3) good
j - (page 5) good
k, l, o - (page 6) good
r - (page 1) good
Ref 15 (2 cites) - both good.
Ref 16 (5 cites) - date and accessdate were switched, fixed. Fixed date format. - all good.
Ref 17 (1 cite) - Fixed date format. Good.
Ref 18 (2 cites) - Fixed date format. Both good.
Ref 19 (4 cites (previously 1)) - content review pending, but I noticed that this and ref 38 are duplicates (both reference the same chapter in the book, no page numbers). Merged under ref name="KSL".
Ref 20 (2 cites (previously 1)) - While this article does state the price of the 32X, it does not explicitly state that the console is aimed at players who could not afford the Saturn. I'm leaving this reference in place but supplementing it with Ref 3 which very explicitly states the claim. I've also added this citation to the last claim of ref 3 since it states that sales sagged after an initial rush.
Ref 21 (2 cites) - both good.
Ref 22 (1 cite) - good.
I split ref 6 as discussed.
I thought I had fixed all the date formats in my initial once over, but it looks like there are still some in the YYYY-MM-DD format. Will switch to MONTH, DAY YEAR as I comb through (access and archive dates should stay in YYYY-MM-DD format).--chrisFjordson(talk) 07:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Part 3 (24-49) I've made any corrections myself (all minor) and added two new citations (Eurogamer and IGN).
Ref 24 (4 cites) - I absolutely could not find this one anywhere, and no one in our in-house reference library is listed as having a copy. (Edge February 1995, Issue 17). Based on what's in the citation data, it looks ok.
Ref 25 - Good. note: Since several references already has it, I'm going to go ahead and add "[magazine name] staff" as the author for references (such as Next Generation Magazine) where the source doesn't supply an author.
Ref 26 & 27 - both good.
Ref 29 - both good.
Ref 30 - added date parameter. The cited source only says "the Sony keynote speaker," it doesn't mention Steve Race by name. Supplemented with Ref 17 (ref name="Tale of Two E3s").
Ref 31 - added page number. Good.
Ref 35 - Good.
Ref 36 - Added archiveurl and archivedate parameters (archiveurl was previously given as url parameter). Good.
Ref 37 - Good.
Ref 38 - Good.
Ref 40 - Added link to article reprint on thefreelibrary.com. Good.
Ref 43 - behind a paywall. Based on the free blurb, this looks like it supports the claim.
Ref 44 - Good.
Ref 45 - Good, but I've supplemented this with a source from IGN to demonstrate his previous involvement in arcade development.
Ref 46 - I added this (see above).
Ref 47 & 48 - both good.
Ref 49 - good.
I've added a source from Eurogamer to the claim that the Sega CD was commercially disappointing. This is now Ref 4, so all the refs are bumped up a number; this will be reflected from this comment onward, but not in the previous comments. I'm also going to go ahead and add this to the 32X article since the same source in ref 3 is used for the same claim there.
Alright, I finally got time to pick up a copy of "The Ultimate History of Video Games," so I'm going to go ahead and knock those out.
Ref 2 (!) - good, but there's a minor issue on the last instance. The text reads "The Japanese board of directors initially disapproved of the plan, but all four points were approved by Nakayama, who told Kalinske, "I hired you to make the decisions for Europe and the Americas, so go ahead and do it." In the source material, Kalinske is recounting his pitch to the Japanese board, and says "As the other guys got up to leave, Nakayama turned and said, 'On the other hand, he was hired to make decisions for the U.S. market, and if that is what he thinks needs to be done, he should go ahead and do it.'" Nakayama is talking about Kalinske, not to him. Either (a) the quotes need to be dropped and the tidbit reworded, or (b) reworked with quotes intacted (eg all four points were approved by Nakayama, who told the board "[Kalinske] was hired to make decisions for the U.S. market, and if that is what he thinks needs to be done, he should go ahead and do it.") I think the latter is preferable since it's a more accurate depiction of the events as recounted in the source, but I would like your input on this.
Ref 6 - good.
Ref 13 - good. Note: In the part where you discuss programmers having trouble with the Saturn, you might mention that even Suzuki had difficulty with the dual-processors while making the Saturn version of Daytona.
Ref 20 (!) - a is good. b, c, and d are a problem. I'm going to copy/paste the paragraph here with my notes in bolded brackets to make this easier (note: the following is all one paragraph, although I have split it up here based on the ref letters). The chapter cited (The "Next" Generation (part 1)) deals primarily with the events of 1994 and, when talking about Sega, focuses almost exclusively on the 32X.
b - By the end of 1995, Sega was supporting five different consoles — Saturn, Genesis, Game Gear, Pico, and theMaster System — as well as the Sega CD and Sega 32X add-ons.[this is found on pg 508, should be tagged with reference 28] In Japan the Mega Drive had never been successful, and the Saturn was outselling the PlayStation, so Sega Enterprises CEO Hayao Nakayama decided to focus on the Saturn.[also 28 (pg 508)] While this was logical for the Japanese market, it proved to be a disastrous move in North America and Europe: the market for Genesis games was much larger than for the Saturn, but Sega was left without the inventory or software to meet demand. [Not this chapter. I know other sources in our reflist have discussed this issue in greater detail. The last sentence of this claim could be supported with one of them.]
c - By contrast, Nintendo concentrated on the 16-bit home console market, as well as its successful handheld, the Game Boy, and as a result Nintendo took in 42 percent of the video game market dollar share,[needs to be supplemented with Ref 40] despite not launching a 32-bit console to compete directly with Sony's PlayStation and Sega's Saturn. [This one is the most problematic. The only 16-bit game discussed here is Donkey Kong Country (released in 1994). At the 1994 CES they unveil the plans for Ultron 64 to reporters (although the Ultron [N64] didn't come out until after 1995), but the chapter never explicitly states anything like "Nintendo concentrated on the 16-bit home console market". The only mention of the Gamboy in this chapter is their plans for the Super Game Boy in 1994 and the fact that by this time Game Boy sales had slowed. The biggest problem is that this chapter does not discuss the release of Sega or Sony's 32-bit consoles. Making this comparison between the three companies using this chapter as a reference doesn't really make sense.]
d - Due to Sega's decision to cut support to its 16-bit business to focus on the Saturn[again, not this chapter], Nintendo was able to capitalize by its continued focus on the SNES and the Game Boy from 1995 onward.["1995 onward" feels a little loose; they released the N64 in Japan and North American in 1996. Also, Ref 20 does not support this statement.] While Sega was still able to capture 43 percent of the dollar share of the U.S. video game market as a whole, [Good] Nakayama's decision undercut the Sega of America executives.[not this chapter. If we use Ref 28 for this, it needs a cf. for this instance].
:note: if you can rework this with the right sources then that's fine, but you might want to redo the whole paragraph from scratch. Ref 40 is fine.
Ref 28 - All good. Note: this source doesn't actually say "Saturnday", it just says "Sega Saturn Saturday". I know I've seen it in stated as "Saturnday" in other sources. Will update once I find it.
Ref 32, 33, 39, 41 - Good.
Ref 42 - good. Note: You might want to reword "lighter image", it's a little vague. Maybe softer.
Ref 50 - Good. Note: You might want to briefly describe what Gameworks is and/or mention Spielberg's involvement.
Ref 57 - All good.
Ref 108 - Good.
Ref 113 (!) - duplicate of ref 32 (both cite pg 533). Needs to be merged.
The way this source is cited needs to be standardized. I'd like to cite it by page number rather than chapter title since that's the predominate format (plus page numbers make it way easier to check). As it is now several of the page number citations overlap with the chapter citations. Let me know your thoughts on this. I'd be happy to do it myself once the problems with Ref 20 are resolved. --chrisFjordson(talk) 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Brief response: As much as Red Phoenix is a tremendously good editor involved with far more Good and Featured articles than I will probably ever be, in his rush to get this page to GA as quickly as possible he did make a few sloppy mistakes (my original goal here was to make Sega Saturn worthy of the GA name, not the FA). Chief among these are the large swathes of text he copied-and-pasted from Sega Genesis and Sega 32X. The whole paragraph about Nintendo capitalizing on their continued focus on the SNES while Sega supposedly abandoned the Genesis has been a problem prompting both trimming and talk page discussion for some time. The original version included commentary about the Sega Nomad being undermined by the success of Pokemon (as well as shout-outs to Donkey Kong Country 3 and Super Mario RPG) and cited "32X Follies" for the claim that Super Metroid demonstrated the Genesis' "lagging capabilities" (there is no mention of Super Metroid in "32X Follies", which cites the Super FX-powered Yoshi's Island instead; RP probably meant to cite Kent, who does mention Super Metroid, but I'm surprised that such errors made it past the FAC review for Sega 32X). Beyond trimming, I have previously challenged the entire premise of the paragraph. It is worth noting, however, that fairly similar text made it into the FA Sega Genesis. This has contributed to my ambivalence about what to do with the material. I am aware of Suzuki's troubles with Saturn Daytona, and would be happy to add that to the article. As for the rest of the issues you have pointed out--I'll see what I can do.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: For the record, the bit about Super Metroid was copied by RP, but User:SexyKick (not RP) added it to Sega 32X in the first place. RP has further explained to me that he used chapters because he doesn't have a physical copy of Kent's book.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I've rewritten the paragraph about the 1995 holiday season, added a source for "Saturnday", and tweaked the article in response to your comments.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Your rewrite of that paragraph looks great. It's more cogent and the sources are good. I'll leave the page numbers to you; I'm going to start in on the next round of references.--chrisFjordson(talk) 08:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like there is a minor issue with ref 40. The URL works if you copy/paste it, but if you click on the reference, it's broken. The URL contains two single quote marks side by side, so Wikipedia interprets it as formatting and truncates the URL (causing the break). Unfortunately, adding nowiki tags inside the URL parameter messes it up even worse. Currently, the truncated chuck is part of the ref title. I have no idea how to fix this. Maybe we could drop the cite web template for this and format the citation by hand? Although I'm not sure that would fix the problem since we'd still need nowiki tags. I don't know. I'm stumped on this one. --chrisFjordson(talk) 08:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
We could eliminate the link. It's still a published source off the web.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Mega Drive "Retroinspection" is being used as the source for Nakayama's approval of Kalinske's plan, not Kent. In that source, the following version of the quote is used: "I hired you to make the decisions for Europe and the Americas, so go ahead and do it." Since both Retro Gamer and Kent are citing Kalinske, it really is a judgement call which variant we use, but we need to decide now so that we know which source to use.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh my, you're right. The original version of the quote is fine then. And duh, I can't believe it didn't occur to me to just remove the link from the citation. It's a shame we can't include it though. Oh well. I guess if someone is really interested in reading the source they can just google it.--chrisFjordson(talk) 09:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Next batch (57-76) Note: the numbers have shifted a bit since the restructuring of the Kent citations.
Ref 57, 58, 59 - good.
Ref 61 - All good. Note: the wording in the first instance is a little repetitive. Two back-to-back sentences start with the phrase "Development of the game".
Ref 62 - Good. Note: the last paragraph has some minor discrepancies. (1)The source only says "holiday" and "winter" deadline.(2) The article says the work day was 20 hours. Also, that the office move was to "avoid company politics" is not stated in the source. (3) The last bit about NiGHTS happens before the other events in the paragraph, but the way it's currently organized makes it sound like they tried to get the NiGHTS engine in a last ditch effort after the office was moved. You might want to rework the whole paragraph; some of the wording is a little wonky.
Ref 63 - Good. Note: You might want to incorporate the sentence "Levels appeared to move around Sonic" into one of the previous sentences. It reads weirdly with it just sort of hanging off the end of the paragraph.
Ref 64 - Good. Note: The portion of the paragraph before the claim this citation supports (that the game was pushed back) needs to be supplemented with one of the other citations.
Ref 65, 66, 68 - Good.
Ref 69 - the info is good, but "some have cited as an example of theOsborne effect." Are there other instances of this besides ref 69? Either way it should be reworded to avoid running afoul of WP:VAGUE, or scrapped all together.
Ref 71 - This one is off. Our claim is "In Japan, the console sold 6 million units." In the article, it states "After the company sold some 20 million 16-bit Genesis consoles in the United States alone in the early 1990's, its 32-bit Saturn flopped. Introduced in 1995, only two million of the consoles sold in the United States, and five million in Japan." I think the mix up might be because the article also says that "Sony's Playstation and Nintendo's 64-bit console have each sold more than six million units in the United States alone." Note: I supplemented a claim with this source in the "decline" subsection.
Ref 72 - I found this extremely in depth arguement over this very issue, which has a scan of the relevant page of the magazine in question, so this on is good. They also claim in that discussion that Gamespy supports the claim as well, but they don't cite a reference and I can't find it on their site. Our List of million-selling game consoles says that "Famitsu reported 3.58 million in Japan and 25 million for the United States and Europe by the end of March 1996" in Famitsu Weekly, but I also can't find the Famitsu report, and I'd be very uneasy citing it without reading the source. I think this one is fine the way it is, but I just wanted to note here, in case it come up again, that this number has been the subject of some debate, and that consensus seems to be what we have in the article.
Ref 73, 74, 75, 76 - good.
Note: I thought this was a weird disconnect so I thought I'd point it out. In the Icons interview we quote, Stolar says "I believe if we look at [the Sega] Saturn, it was a system that shouldn't have been launched. It was too difficult to develop for therefore the games were not fun and the games weren't there.This isn't a matter about hardware, this is about software. Software has always driven hardware. You don't have the software, the hardware will fail," but in IGN Presents the History of Dreamcast "I thought the Saturn was a mistake as far as hardware was concerned," remarked an unrepentant Stolar. "The games were obviously terrific, but the hardware just wasn't there." This is odd to me. It's certainly strange to me to see Stolar completely condradict himself on the issue, and I'm wondering if we should include the quote from IGN since Stolar is obviously of two minds on the subject. The discrepancy from such an important figure might help to highlights the multiple issues the system faced. Just a thought. --chrisFjordson(talk) 03:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of the issues with the section on X-treme were caused by the IGN article not being supplemented by the more in-depth GamesRadar article, although their disagreement on the work hours is duly noted. Sales numbers fixed. To be honest, I had previously noticed both of those discrepancies and simply forgot to fix them. (Considering I was still finding errors like the wrong Dreamcast launch date a couple of days after the FA nomination, it's perhaps fair to say I should have done a more thorough fact-checking before nominating, but then again another pair of eyes really helps.) Good catch on the timeframe of STI's request for the Nights engine! I've never been comfortable with the section about the Osborne effect, and neither has Indrian as I recall, so I removed it. As for the Stolar quote, I noticed the same thing you did right away (and Red Phoenix tried to delete it) but the user who added it insisted that we keep it in. Are you saying we should include both quotes?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. I actually found the video in that section, and I understand his rationale for wanting to keep it in, but it is a clear discrepancy. Plus the IGN quote is more recent, so I don't know if in the meantime Stolar's opinion did a complete 180 or he perhaps simply forgot what he had previously thought. I thought one possible solution might be to just have both included, one after the other, but I realize from a formatting perspective that might not look too clean on the page. I don't know. I'm not really of a strong opinion on this issue, but it seems weird to include the earlier quote knowing what he's more recently said. But I don't want to just have no quote; I think it adds to the article to have Stolar's perspective on it. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Would anyone else like to weigh in?
Also, good call on removing the Osborne effect bit, but I think the article would still benefit from including the quote from Stolar where he says "the Saturn is not our future" since helped to solidify the turning point in Sega's direction. I've seen it in several of the other sources, so we could just add it back in with one of them. And great job so far!--chrisFjordson(talk) 06:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I will re-add the Stolar quote from E3 1997 shortly, and add a little more on Stolar in the process. We have two blockquotes from Stolar already, so I am reluctant to add a third, especially since it could appear that Wikipedia is trying to combine the quotes to make a point or catch Stolar in some kind of contradiction. But I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who may be watching this page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It may be worth noting that a Next Generation Online article dated July 16 says (regarding Kalinske's departure) that "No official word has come from Sega yet, although an announcement is expected by the end of today." July 16 is also the date given by M2PressWIRE, which suggests that the July 15 date given by Kent page 535 is wrong.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I finally checked the M2PressWIRE article for myself: "Sega also announced that Hayao Nakayama and David Rosen have resigned as chairman and co-chairman of Sega of America, respectively." This announcement was made the same day, July 16, so there is no need for us to copy Kent's vague "within the week" language.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about the fact that citing them both might make Stolar look foolish, but you're right. If you're comfortable with just keeping the Icons quote already present, I'm fine with it too. Also, I haven't had a chance to look over your rework of the Changes at Sega section, but I look forward to reading it.--chrisFjordson(talk) 22:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
84 - Good. Note - This and the above look good to me, but someone more familiar with these sort of technical specs might want to give it a once over.
86, 137 - Good.
87, 88 - Good.
89 - Good. Note: Do we have something that explicitly states that the geometric primitives were triangles for the PS and N64? It is strongly implied in the interview, but not directly stated, and although the interviewer mentions the N64, the answers focus on the PS. If there's nothing handy, this one is still fine.
90 - Good.
91-107 - Looks good. Note: I am using Google's page translator for these.
108 - Good, although I'm not sure the page specifically states that the service was pay-to-play (using translate for this as well. The info might be contained in one of the four brochure images, but my translator can't touch those).
110, 111 - good.
Fighting Vipers, Golden Axe: The Duel, Sega Touring Car Championship - these games are not featured in as one of the 50 games in the article. If they were mentioned off-handedly in one of the other game's reviews, I didn't see it.
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Resident Evil, Wipeout 2097 - our article says mixed results for these ports, but this article (the only source) points out only these games strong points and even heaps praise on them. The only possible mixed result is WipEout, but the article dismisses the only flaw it points out. If we're going to keep the mixed results part we need other sources that give them at least some criticism.
Die Hard Arcade - minor note: the article doesn't specifically mention that it's a port, but I think the name suffices.
Tomb Raider - minor note: the article does not mention that Core Design made the game.
Ref 113, 114 - I'd feel more comfortable calling it critically acclaimed if we individually cited another review or two.
Ref 115, 116, 117 - Good.
Ref 118-122 - Good, Note: should we abbreviate "Nights Into Dreams..." as "Nights"? Not just here, but in general. It seems like we switch from the full name to the abbreviation with no apparent pattern. Also, all instances of the full name are standard except for one "NiGHTS Into Dreams".
Ref 123-125 - Good.
Note: it looks like the order of the refs have changed a bit more, so I'll go back and hit any I missed after I get to the end of the list.--chrisFjordson(talk) 22:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
112 - The short list of Sega's arcade ports is actually unsourced, although the existence of each port could be individually sourced. It's arguable that it should be trimmed to more well-known games, but it's difficult to determine where to draw the line objectively. That Core Design developed Tomb Raider is common knowledge, but it wouldn't be hard to source, if it is necessary to note the developer. (A GameSpot article on the "History of Tomb Raider" covered this in greater detail, and was the original source, but can no longer be found online.) If Sega Rally is too much of an abbreviation for the third time the game is mentioned in the article, Virtual On must be too. GamesRadar is not glowing in its coverage of Saturn Symphony of the Night, noting that Igarashi expressed his "ambivalence" towards the project and that "Players outside Japan didn't get to sample" the "downgraded graphical effects" and "altered inventory system".
On the Stolar quote, I would advocate using the more recent IGN variant, although there really is no contradiction: Perhaps third-party support was lacking, but Sega's first-party teams were able to use the hardware effectively.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You know, reading my comment, I feel like it might have seemed a little hostile or overly critical, and I certainly didn't mean for it to be. I just wrote it out roughly because I'm in rush today. I definitely agree that games listed could be trimmed, but I don't really have any suggestions as to where since I'm not too familiar with the various games' notabilities. I think it would be okay to keep the Nights abbreviated, but maybe switch the last instance to either the abbreviation or the standard way it's written in the rest of the article. As for the mixed results, I was taking it to mean that overall reception to the game was mixed, not the comparison of the before and after of the ports, and taken that way this citation is fine. I figured the Tomb Raider bit was common knowledge, but I just wanted to make a note of it. It's probably fine as is. For the Sega Rally, I don't think it's a problem with abbreviating it, but it might be a good idea to put the full title and wikilink it so it's easily accessible to people who might just want to check out which games are on the system but didn't read the rest of the article. If you want to keep it as is, I don't really have a problem with it. --chrisFjordson(talk) 00:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I know you intend no hostility; you wouldn't be here helping me if you didn't have the best of intentions. I think I have addressed most of your complaints, except the arcade ports listed without a source, and I will get to that soon enough. What do you think of my proposal to use the more recent Stolar quote?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
83 - Next Generation February 1995 also mentions the SCU DSP, but we need this source for the 14.3 MHz figure. If you think the link has to go to avoid copyright violations, then feel free to remove it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW - There previously was more material comparing Saturn and PlayStation versions of games like Dead or Alive, Marvel Super Heroes, and Wipeout, which I both added in the first place and subsequentlyremoved. It got far too off-topic with inherently selective sampling of games/reviews. I would prefer to avoid delving too deeply into "console war" territory. Dead or Alive is still a topic of intense message board debate over whether the faster Saturn version is superior due to its faithfulness to its arcade counterpart or the PlayStation version reigns supreme as a result of being completely remade for the system with more detailed graphics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
After what turned out to be a GA review that made me want to pull my hair out, I think I'm finally ready to return to this article to offer my assistance. TheTimesAreAChanging, you and Indrian have done some fantastic work here. On behalf of WP:SEGA, I appreciate very much what both of you have done for this article. Now, while I may have been a contributor to this article, it has been quite a while since I've really looked at it, so while I may not feel comfortable supporting or opposing on those grounds, I can provide some suggestions that may help out. As I can see some thorough image and source reviews have already taken place, I'll take a detailed look at prose, format, and content. (As a side note, for anyone interested, I'm looking for more feedback at the Sega CD FAC.)
First real thing I'm noticing, and this one's probably my fault: The Sonic X-treme section is great, and it's also mentioned in the lead, but where in the body do we note that the failure to develop it was a factor in the Saturn's lack of success? Certainly there are comments from both IGN and GamesRadar about its impact in their respective articles, I'm sure, but I don't think it's in the article itself anywhere that I can see. Without that noted specifically in the body and sourced, the section feels out of place.
Check your "Launch" section for reference tags out of order - some areas where two or more references are cited have tag numbers that are not in numerical order, and can easily be fixed by moving the ref tags around to line them up in sequence. Launch had the most I can see, but it would be a good idea to skim the whole article for this.
I realize image reviews have already been conducted, but can a fair-use image of a Saturn game be added to the Game Library section to demonstrate what a game on the system looks like? We've successfully argued for this before at both the Sega Genesis and Sega 32X FACs, and is in my opinion to the benefit of the article to showcase what kind of game the Saturn hardware is capable of playing. I've often found the best way to do this is to take an already-existent screenshot of another game from another article and expand its fair-use rationale to include the second article it is being used on, keeping our copyrighted material usage at a minimum on the encyclopedia, and I personally like using games that also have further mentioning in the library section for closer relevance (examples include using Doom on Sega 32X, Sonic the Hedgehog on Sega Genesis, Phantasy Star on Master System, Fatal Labyrinth on Sega Meganet, etc.)
End of the Game Library section needs to end in a citation, as with any paragraph.
Personally, I would try to minimize using in-line citations at points other than where there is punctuation. I've tried to find it in the MOS and been unsuccessful so far, but it does make a paragraph harder to read. Commas and semicolons are good places for in-line citations as well as periods. This occurs several times in the article.
Short paragraphs: There are a number of two and three sentence paragraphs in the prose, which feel choppy when reading. The best example I can see of this is at the end of the Reception section. In these cases, can this material be worked into other paragraphs to improve fluency?
We'll start with that for now and I'll take some more time to look a little later. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I prefer to put citations directly behind claims that are likely to be challenged and in order of relevance, rather than lumping all of them together and then rearranging them based on their numerical value. I believe doing so makes material far easier to verify, as demonstrated even in this review when (following "clean-up" of my original organization) Chrisfjordson was confused by instances of the first cited source only partially supporting various claims. However, I have re-ordered the citations per your request. It is difficult for someone of my personal preferences to summon the motivation to go even further and eliminate every instance of citations sans punctuation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph of speculation about the possible impact of a completed X-treme to the "X-treme" section, which is where I feel it belongs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
czar has linked me to WP:REFPUNC, which allows for the use of intrasentence footnotes. I personally disagree with them myself due to readability issues, but as it's supported in the guidelines, I wouldn't worry about that. I'll take a closer look at this later; good work with the X-treme section so far. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 17:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Closing comment -- This has been open a month and a half without gaining support for promotion; despite a good deal of effort having been put into the review by all concerned early on, it's had no activity for several weeks, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)