Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega 32X/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Sega 32X

[edit]

Sega 32X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 23:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the world of video games, there's no stranger story, I believe, than the Sega 32X. It was one of the most unique concepts in video gaming—the idea that a video game console's life could be expanded by adding a piece of hardware to boost the system's power, more so than the Sega CD and its addition of a CD-ROM drive. What resulted was a commercial failure that caught few by surprise because of its incredibly poor timing and support, and it served as a lesson to the entire gaming industry. I think this article is so neat because it features so many aspects of the 32X's short lifetime and how it's seen today, even by Sega's former executives who were a part of its development. Whether you're into video games or not, this article covers a very neat subject, and it's very high quality. I'm hoping the FAC process will help to make it the best it can be. Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 23:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some of these supports look a bit drive-by. I've taken a quick look at the lead.
  • First paragraph, final sentence: "The add-on was distributed under the name Super 32X (スーパー32X, Sūpā Sātī Tsu Ekkusu) in Japan, Sega Genesis 32X in North America, Sega Mega Drive 32X in the PAL region, and Sega Mega 32X in Brazil." Was it distributed anywhere as "Sega 32X", and if not, why is the device called that?
  • WP:COMMONNAME - Media and sources of all kinds explicitly call it "Sega 32X"; with the exception of Allgame, all of the sources used for this article and most sources in media past and present not used in this article call it Sega 32X and not a specific name. As far as I can tell it was never distributed as "Sega 32X" by itself anywhere, but it's referred to in all types of media, both time period-relevant and retrospectively, as "Sega 32X" or just "32X". This somewhat makes sense considering that except for Japan, each region basically had the name of the console included in the title with a "32X" added. I'm not quite sure how to make that explicit, but that's why it's called "Sega 32X" - it's the common name. Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 01:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the PAL region? Link or explain
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph goes on and on and on... Needs to be split into two or three sentences
  • The "in order to" form is generally deprecated as substandard prose. (It recurs several times in the text)
  • "the console failed to attract either developers or consumers" – make that "sufficient consumers" (665,000 were sold). I am not sure, either, what "developers" it hoped and failed to attract.
  • "In part because of this, and also to rush the 32X to market before the holiday season in 1994, the 32X suffered from a weak library of titles." I assume that "this" refers to the prior announcement of the Sega Saturn. Why would this announcement lead to a weak library of titles for the 32X?
These are relatively minor points, but they do indicate that the prose could do with some careful checking, to ensure that it meets FAC standards. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I always appreciate thorough reviews. I'm of the opinion that part of the FAC process is to do some final touch-up and improvement with extra feedback of the reviewers to hash out such issues, so I greatly appreciate your feedback so far and look forward to more. Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 01:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • "add-on" — technical term, link to either Peripheral or Video game accessory. Under game library there is an instance of add-on that seems as if it refers to a software add-on ("Sega CD add-ons") and so appears crucial to distinguish.
  • "pass-through" — I can't find a definition that fits your use of this phrase, which I take to mean that it can play Genesis games?
  • Under "Reception and legacy": "(i)n theory," should this be "[i]n theory,"?
  • Done.
Will take a closer look sometime soon, but appears otherwise to be in good order. Well done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

00:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh no, I didn't mean whether the logo should be included; I meant whether the infobox caption should say something like: Top: Logo for the Sega 32X; Bottom: The Sega 32X ... but if it's not in other FAs then it's not a requirement. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've read through the lead and see little cause to support. "Add-on" links to an article stating "video game accessories are everything except the console itself", so the fact that it had "its own library of games" is confusing: replace "add-on" with wording that is easy to understand. Giving its pre-production codename in the 2nd sentence is a distraction. Why is the Japanese name given in three forms? The lead should be a summary, but the names in some regions are not mentioned in the main text. Similarly, "June 1994" is not in the main text. "and made more powerful": than what? "have the new add-on to market": 'have to market' seems wrong. "causing developers and consumers to wait for the Saturn instead of invest in the 32X": surely "investing" is needed? "the console failed to attract either third-party video game developers or sufficient consumers as the Sega Saturn had already been announced for release the following year, causing developers and consumers to wait": what was the cause – the failing to attract, or the Saturn announcement? Just state what "holiday season" means; following the link should not be required. "In order to have the new add-on to market by the end of 1994" and "because of Sega's efforts to rush the 32X to market before the holiday season in 1994" appear to be identical, so there is unnecessary repetition. "by the end of 1994" also appears three times in para 2. When was it released? "the low price point": is that different from "the low price"? "after the add-on's unveiling and launch was positive, highlighting the low price point of the system": this kind of construction is used several times, but is much easier to read if anaphoric reference is used, e.g., "after the add-on's unveiling and launch was positive, highlighting its low price". "poor timing into the market": 'entry' or similar is needed somewhere in there.

Based on this sample of text, criterion 2a is not met and I doubt that the article's "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (criterion 1a). EddieHugh (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. In response to some of them:
    • "Add-on" is the common term used by the video gaming community, and the 32X is referred to as an "add-on" in all of the sources used for the article. This is the reason for this selection of terminology.
    • The Japanese name is given in three forms because this is commonplace in video game articles for Japanese releases, to have the "translated name", the name in Japanese characters, and the direct romanization of that name.
    • Names in all of the regions aren't mentioned because none of them are what are commonly referred to in the sources. Video game media tends to broadly call the console "Sega 32X", despite its different naming, and the names are given just for identification purposes. Restating them when nothing else is to be said on the subject of the names is, to me, unnecessary.
    • I added a "June" at the mentioning of the console's unveiling in the text.
  • I don't have the time and energy to go through all of this tonight, but if you choose to nitpick the prose, I'd like to ask a favor. I'd prefer to have a bulleted list of suggested changes, if you wouldn't mind. Then, I can rectify them and allow you to make your decision afterward. I don't feel that copyediting prose notes that I would all consider minor issues should be a reason to oppose, and think that that is part of the FAC process and part of why we do it this way. Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 01:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I sometimes drop in on an FAC, especially where I see a cluster of brief Supports. When I look at the article and see what I regard as either a lack of clarity for the general reader or a lot of obvious prose problems in the part I choose to look at, then I make some comments that give examples, in the (partly lazy, partly too busy) hope that someone else will look and comment in more detail on the problems exemplified. This is usually, in part, because the frequency of problems found indicates that the FAC process is being relied on to develop the prose, rather than being a final check. It's not a full review, so I don't Oppose or Support. EddieHugh (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think a large part of FAC being used to develop prose has to do with a larger issue of lack of involved editors in review areas all across Wikipedia. As a whole, video games as a subject doesn't tend to draw many reviewers, either, especially not specialists with copyediting or prose. Most video game reviewers, and that does include myself, tend to look at completeness and structure, and I work very specifically with images and source reviews a lot on these as well, but prose is not a specialty. In general, though, it's a dying thing, and I did feel sending this or any of my other FAs and upcoming FA candidates to peer review or for copyediting would not gain any response; ergo, FAC becomes part of the process and I believe creates stronger articles because of the exposure coming here brings. It's my hope, at least, that this review won't end up like this one, where I think User:JDC808 unfairly got the short stick due to short reviews and lengthy copyedit issues that he was able to easily resolve as they came up, but because of their timing, he lost out. For that, I appreciate that you're trying to generate more comments that way. Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On that note as well, more responses to raised issues with the lead:
  • "Have to market" changed to "bring to market" for clarity. Personally, I think "have to market" might be something that comes from my American midwest dialect, the more that I look at it, which is why it doesn't seem wrong.
  • "Invest" changed to "investing" - Again, this didn't seem wrong to me, but it does make sense with "investing", so I'm good with the change.
  • Changed one "by the end of 1994" to "November 1994" in order to both add the release date and remove one "by the end of 1994". Interestingly, all three referred to different things, making rewording this difficult: one was the release window for the 32X, another was a worry that the Saturn wouldn't make it by the end of 1994, and the third is the sourcing of the numbers, which (in German) states are numbers up until the end of 1994. Tricky.
  • Rephrased the "causing" sentence; it should be more clear now.
  • Revoked repetition of rushing to market by end of 1994.
  • Changed "low price point" to "low price"
  • If I may be honest, I've never heard the term "anaphoric reference". I can see that I would likely need some assistance with consistent implementation if it's deemed necessary.
Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 03:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed this for clarity. What is attempting to be conveyed is that the game was criticized after the lifetime of the add-on was over, in "retrospectives". However, I've removed it as an unnecessary redundancy anyway. Tone has always been a very cautious stepping stone with this article due to the 32X's highly negative reception in the media today (which essentially blames the 32X for destroying Sega's hardware business, though they continued on until the discontinuation of Dreamcast in 2001) versus its positive reception prior to and at the add-on's launch, hence the attempts to word things very cautiously. Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 03:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Red Phoenix, the article is fantastic!

WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis for the Game library. Can it be expanded a bit in the lead?

  • Major Point 1: History "Unveiled at June 1994's Consumer Electronics Show, Sega presented the 32X as a low cost option for consumers looking to play 32-bit games. Developed in response to the Atari Jaguar with concerns that the Saturn would not make it to market by the end of 1994, the product was originally conceived as an entirely new console. However, at the suggestion of Sega of America executive Joe Miller and his team, the console was converted into an add-on to the existing Genesis and made more powerful. The final design contained two 32-bit central processing unit chips and a 3D graphics processor. In order to have the new add-on to market by the end of 1994, development of the new system and its games were rushed. Ultimately, the console failed to attract either third-party video game developers or sufficient consumers as the Sega Saturn had already been announced for release the following year, causing developers and consumers to wait for the Saturn instead of invest in the 32X. In part because of the announcement, and also because of Sega's efforts to rush the 32X to market before the holiday season in 1994, cutting into available time for game development, the 32X suffered from a weak library of titles. By the end of 1994, the add-on had sold 665,000 units. It was discontinued in 1995 as Sega turned their focus toward the Saturn." & "Codenamed "Project Mars", the 32X was designed to expand the power of the Genesis and serve as a transitional console into the 32-bit era until the later release of the Sega Saturn." (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 2: Technical aspects and specifications "Independent of the Genesis, the 32X utilizes its own ROM cartridges and has its own library of games, but also plays Genesis cartridges." (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 3: Game library "" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
    • I've rephrased a sentence or two to add a little more, but I would contend that this section is covered (and better so with the new rewording" here: "In part because of the announcement, and also because of Sega's efforts to rush the 32X to market, which cut into available time for game development, the 32X suffered from a weak library of forty titles that could not fully utilize the add-on's hardware, including Genesis ports." Game library was a major focus of the criticisms of the add-on. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Point 4: Reception and legacy "The 32X is considered a commercial failure. Initial reception after the add-on's unveiling and launch was positive, highlighting the low price point of the system and power expansion to the Genesis. Later feedback and retrospectives have given the 32X mostly negative reviews for its shallow game library, poor timing into the market, and splintering of the market for the Genesis." (summarised well in the lead)

Other suggestions:

  • I think the sentence "At the Winter Consumer Electronics Show in early 1994, Sega of America research and development head Joe Miller, as well as Bayless, Sega hardware team head Hideki Sato, and Sega vice president of technology Marty Franz, took a phone call from Nakayama, in which Nakayama stressed the importance of coming up with a quick response to the Jaguar." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
    • Rephrased as "At the Winter Consumer Electronics Show in early 1994, Sega of America research and development head Joe Miller took a phone call from Nakayama, in which Nakayama stressed the importance of coming up with a quick response to the Jaguar. Included on this call were Bayless, Sega hardware team head Hideki Sato, and Sega vice president of technology Marty Franz." Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later feedback and retrospectives have given the 32X mostly negative reviews for its shallow game library, poor timing into the market, and splintering of the market for the Genesis." (I’d recommend a rephrasing: "Later reviews, both contemporary and retrospective, for the 32X have been mostly negative because of its shallow game library, poor market timing and the resulting market fragmentation for the Genesis." The terms "market timing" and "market fragmentation" are more common in business. Please feel free to rephrase it differently or ignore the suggestion altogether.)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Red Phoenix, please feel free to strike out any recommendation which you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. This was definitely a fun and challenging article to write. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sales information is about fiscal year 1994, so if I recall, fiscal year 1994 ends in March 1995.--SexyKick 23:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's quite right. As far as I was aware, "fiscal years" run February to January. I didn't recall seeing anything about the fiscal year when I translated the article. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: the Man!ac source directly says in German, "Eingerechnet wurden die Verkaufe bis zum Jahresende 1994", which translates into (according to Google Translate): The Sell were Calculated by the end of 1994". It doesn't specify fiscal year, and Man!ac is a gaming magazine, not a business journal. I don't know if we can presume fiscal year here. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay! That clears that up then.--SexyKick 00:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Have I missed image and source reviews above? If not done, pls post a request for these in the appropriate section at the top of WT:FAC.
  • Walking through the lead, the prose looks decent to me but there were still some issues that needed improvement. Based on this I think at least a light copyedit by a good prose editor is needed. Generally of course one would prefer this to have taken place before FAC but the review is not that old and I'm prepared to leave it open if someone gets on to this in short order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through and tried to do the best I can to touch it up. I think the biggest issue here is that without fresh eyes and with my own perspectives on prose, it's a little difficult. I don't consider myself a bad writer, but I do stress sentence fluency and connecting sentences and thoughts in an aesthetically pleasing and easy to read fashion which may not be completely compliant with what reviewers here expect. So far, I've made sure to address every prose note given to me here. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

If the 32X logo isn't PD-simple / text, then the spines of 32X game boxes won't be free either. Especially since there would be other logos, such as Doom's logo. The Doom screenshot is useful because it shows what is typical of 32X games. Good graphics, and obvious technical strides over the Genesis, but with clearly visible limitations and drawback as well. Since Doom was likely the second best selling title for the 32X (coming bundled with the 32X in later 1995) it's kind of a go to option.--SexyKick 08:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Base on this, I think you are correct that this would not be free. However, as this image is used in a section on the game library and not the system's technical performance, I don't think your argument for Doom holds muster. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wasn't an issue here a couple of months ago. What's the difference this time? I'm not going to throw a fight about it to where it interferes with this FAC, but I don't quite understand why it's acceptable in one article and not in another, especially when the 32X game library section provides further criticisms of the game's graphics, and even highlights Doom specifically for its graphical inferiority. Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two people can have different readings of the NFCC. I've been offering an alternative, but I am willing to discuss. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed - I'd just rather not worry about it. My biggest concern with the "alternative" is that it doesn't actually display what a game on the system looks like - it just shows a bunch of games. To me, it's akin in the NFCC to why individual video game articles all have screenshots (but only one) to demonstrate gameplay. That being said, I know you to be an expert on images and NFCC, so if it doesn't work, it's gone. I don't think the aesthetic is in too bad of a shape without an image at all in the section.

Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, he didn't say it was actually wrong to have a screenshot of a game, he just had an idea for something that might be better. @Crisco 1492:, do you think a picture of a 32X game screenshot would fit better at a different part of the article instead? It's the only image in the whole article that's NFC, so the article itself isn't overloaded with it or anything like that. It looks a bit non-illustrated now without the Neptune or screenshot of a game.--SexyKick 00:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: could we get a tie breaker !vote from you? I really think there should be a screenshot of a game for the article to be complete, much like the Sega Genesis article has.--SexyKick 09:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry it took a while to get back to you on this, I did not get the ping and have not checked this as regularly as I should have owing to RL commitments. Red Phoenix made a good point regarding the use of this to demonstrate technical abilities; perhaps that would be better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave it up to you. That's part of why the image was in the game library section was to demonstrate what a game looks like on the system, and I picked out Doom specifically because we had the extra bits of criticisms in that section as well, making it a hair more relevant. To me, it's not a deal breaker either way, although I would like one for sure. Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response Crisco. I thought it's possible you might have moved on to other Wiki projects or RL matters, I understand not noticing ^^. I think before, it was probably a mistake for us to have the image tacked on to the first paragraph of the section, when its relevance was really to the second paragraph.--SexyKick 16:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Are we pretty much good to go here? I believe all issues have been rectified. Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are. But, usually these get promoted on certain days of the week - like, when they have time to come look through and see which are ready to be promoted. Also, I'm still waiting for Crisco to get back to me on that question I asked him, so...that's one loose end. He did say he was open to discussion on that picture, but then discussion didn't happen.--SexyKick 06:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not too worried about it. It still has a decent amount of images to be considered well illustrated. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Sorry to bug you, but Crisco's comments have been resolved and he's added his support above, and Nikkimaria's comments have all been responded to and resolved. Are we good to go here? Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's that time of the week when I try to step through the FAC list... Yes I think we're about good to go but I notice you have quite a few duplicate links that you should review -- here's a script to highlight them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well scouted. That's normally a procedure I do with that script, and I must've forgotten. Thank you. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sega_32X/archive1&oldid=1136095610"