Talk:Sega CD/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Red Phoenix! You again :P. Anyway, just thought I may as well clear out the GANs, so here I am :D -- ^t numbermaniac^c 03:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, we meet again, and coincidentally with another add-on for the Sega Genesis :P Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup :D. Clearly you love Sega stuff :). Anyway, my internet's being a pain, would you mind if I took up to a week to do this? Thanks! -- ^t numbermaniac^c 02:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine; I could use the time anyway since I work a pretty abrasive job, schedule-wise. I'm the only remaining active member of WP:SEGA if that says anything about me and Sega stuff. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Really, the last member?! Wow. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 02:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... really. Or at least the last one who's active and still contributes. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, time is really evading me. I really have to apologise for such a long delay :( -- ^t numbermaniac^c 00:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That worldwide view may need to be addressed, remove it if it was just because of the name. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 00:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting the name of Sega CD, I don't know what to do there though -- ^t numbermaniac^c 00:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but I think you have to just close the review as a quick-fail at this point because now we've just likely violated criterion 5: that the article is relatively stable. It was at the time of nomination, and though I don't see the IP's points as valid because of the past RFC and because there's plenty of coverage on all of the regions even if most of the sources come from North America (and what's wrong with that? That's the first time I've ever heard someone claim a biased view because I don't have as many sources that were written in Europe as I do in America even though there is fair coverage of all of the regions in the article; still seems more to me that the IP is pushing his point about the title by attacking the sourcing). What I think might work, though, is if you'd be willing to fail this for now and let me get a hold of you for a review when the dust finally settles from this matter. WP:NOTNOW likely is relevant in a sense of this article review in this case, sadly. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is incorrect though, it matters not where the sources originate from, or what language they are in, the scope and understanding has to be a worldview. We do not need a Japanese sources for Sonic the Hedgehog to tell the story and development of the character because such documents exist in English. The individual releases for each region should be covered, under broad, but there is no rule on splitting sources up by region to meet "worldview". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not conceding my point; I do believe as well it's an incorrect claim, but I'm concerned now as to whether or not the IP editor has stirred up enough rabble and fire over the naming disputes again as to violate the stability criterion of the GA standards. That's where I'm worried. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That IP did contact me on my talk page about it... I'm wondering what to do now. Criterion 5 was what I was I worried about, the stability of the article.

I believe that the article does display it in a worldwide perspective. If you want me to cancel the review and then contact me to re-review it once the dispute is sorted, that's ok. The naming disputer is really pointless, as Sega CD seems to match the fact that all the other articles begin with Sega. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 02:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about the dispute never ending may be true, but I see more support for Sega CD than anything else, and this was passed as move, so clearly the "Mega" portion is deemed unnecessary. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 02:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really what it takes, I'll go and spend the $6, or whatever it is, and get Retro Gamer issue #61 if a European source is deemed necessary. Retro Gamer's "Retroinspection" series is pretty helpful, but a pain to access because it's not widely available (at least not in a free sense). I would still fight the suggested title change for reasons of consistency, but I can make a European source happen if this argument continues and consensus sways the other way. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it necessary, WP:TITLECHANGES says that the original title has an advantage over any other moves, and Sega CD follows the naming conventions of the other Sega articles. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source add: A mirror of The rise and fall of Sega from Eurogamer.[1] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reliable source? On the plus side, it turns out I was able to find Retro Gamer issue 17 online... don't ask me how. Turns out Retro Gamer did two articles on the Sega CD, and issue 17 is the other one. I've added in a couple of additional facts and citations to this source to help cement this, and also removed the globalization tag again. As Retro Gamer is a British source, even if this claim is illogical, the addition of a reliable source from Europe in English, including the addition of some text to the Reception section, ought to solve this problem once and for all. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a RS, just an easy mirror for people to go by. I'm going to guess this is a good source for the Game Gear, but that's more for the other GA at this point.[2] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link above is a mirror for the Retro Gamer article I was telling you I found and used, lol. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 - "The Sega CD is an add-on device for the Sega Genesis video game console, designed and produced by Sega and released in North America in 1992" So this first sentence of the lead announces it was launched in North America as an Add on for the "Genesis", when it should state it was launched in Japan first as the "Mega-CD" as an addon for the Mega-Drive, displaying the information chronologially out of order to support your regional bias is wrong. In fact if you got rid of this paragraph all together it would read much better and more neutral as the second paragraph would make a much better lead starting with "In early 1991, Sega announced the Mega-CD for release in Japan in late 1991, North America (as the Sega CD) in 1992, and in Europe in 1993"
2 - References to the "Genesis" through out instead of "Genesis and Mega-Drive" or "Mega-Drive and Genesis" again show a strong North American regional bias
3 - "The Sega CD can only be used in conjunction with a Genesis system," this sentence is just wrong all together.
4 - The article lists the USA price but fails to list the UK launch price of 269.99 pounds or any price for any country in Europe again showing a regional bias
5 - All the sources come from American sites and writers who ONLY have an American perspective on the system.
6 - RE TITLECHANGES the original topic title was and always has been "Sega Mega-CD" and was only changed last month with a one day vote which no one was made aware of apart from a few American editors from the Mega Drive naming dispute.94.172.126.154 (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see EngvarB on here. The prices could be added, but WP:NOPRICE also exists. And you are blocked for continued abuse and likely block evasion from a month ago. Some of these issues will be fixed during the GA review, but as someone who edits EU centric articles with high frequency, I can assure you that nationalistic warring is a bad thing, regardless of the area. When referring to NA releases, use NA name. When referring to JA releases, use JA name. Same with EU. Super Nintendo Entertainment System is not Super Famicom, but it is referred to for any Japanese-related discussion as Super Famicom and not SNES. While the prose can be better, there is no "you must do this" for a GA level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, and speaking of the actual GA review, I just added in an entire section about Night Trap! Yay! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's EngvarB? Regardless, Chris's point is absolutely correct.

Red Phoenix, cool! I need to take a proper read of the article tonight. (in two hours) -- ^t numbermaniac^c 09:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's so hard to read on an iPad when pages reload for absolutely no reason. I've read the beginning, I'll get to the rest tomorrow. *yawns* It's 10:20PM, gotta get some sleep. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 12:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was a little late to this party, but if you still need any citations from RetroGamer's Mega-CD RetroInspection article, I have a copy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That could be best left to Red Phoenix to decide. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 02:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Alright, on with the review. I'm still up to the Game Library section, the article's so long! :P

Now I'm up to Reception. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 04:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Very long, loads of info.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
The quote from Latham and the one after that needs sourcing.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Not much unnecessary info here.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
The controversy above is sorted now, so no problems there.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just a few things as already stated.

Done - Doubled the citation for Latham's quote. The one below it is part of the one next to it and is all the same, and is already sourced. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pass-Yay! It's a GA! -- ^t numbermaniac^c 23:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]