Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Master System/archive1


 * 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 via FACBot (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Master System

 * Nominator(s): Red Phoenix  let's talk... 04:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s, Nintendo was definitely the top dog in video game consoles, but they weren't the only competitor. A relative upstart in terms of home video game consoles, Sega started off by releasing the SG-1000, coincidentally on the same day Nintendo released their Famicom in Japan. Within two years, Sega had dropped the SG-1000 in favor of the Mark III, which became this console, the Master System. While Sega managed to do little with the Master System, partially due to Nintendo's monopolistic practices with video game developers, their work on the Master System would later help to set them up for success in the next generation with the Sega Genesis. The Master System was a flop in Japan and North America, but sold better than Nintendo in Europe, and still continues on today in Brazil through Sega distributor Tectoy. It's a unique device in a video game console that has lasted more than twenty years in South America and served a role in the history of video games, and it's an interesting read to boot. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Tezero
Will do. Adding this to my to-do list. Tezero (talk)


 * Support as I don't really have any non-prose complaints other than to italicize "Game Informer" in source 51, especially because it's the magazine edition. (Granted, I haven't gone through the sources thoroughly at all; that one just stuck out.) Tezero (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And that has now been resolved, as well.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Indrian

 * As this is Red's nom, I'll let him do any actual fixing of the article, but I do want to provide a little context on a couple of these points and add a few of my own thoughts as well.
 * "Retailed" is used as a verb all the time and is used properly in this context. I agree it looks odd though, which I believe is a result of a bad prepositional phrase after the verb.  At the very least, it should read "retailed at lower" rather than "retailed for cheaper" and in this context it may still be better to do as you suggest and rewrite the sentence all together.
 * Retailed at lower has been chosen.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the "technically superior" to the NES claim, I do not see any POV problems there at all, as hardware can be benchmarked, making this a provable fact and not mere opinion. I believe the statement is fine for the lead.  However, there is a big problem in that I do not see the SMS compared to the NES in the body of the article, which is where a more detailed rundown would be appropriate.  This should either be expanded upon in the body or removed from the lead.
 * I've added a paragraph in the Technical specifications to address this. Had to actually research Famicom stats to do it, but I think it'll do the trick.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The quality title sentence is extremely problematic. The point the article is attempting to convey is that Sega was locked out of licensing games from all the big Japanese third-party publishers due to their exclusive relationships with Nintendo.  The current version fails to get that point across.
 * I've reworked this a little bit to be more direct.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not believe your Gulf and Western critique is actionable. G+W was an extremely well-known company that was one of the largest manufacturing and entertainment conglomerates in the world.  In the mid-1980s it underwent a restructuring to focus strictly on entertainment and was renamed Paramount Communications.  I imagine you have heard of Paramount, yes?  Regardless, the company article is properly hyperlinked, so the curious reader can find out more about the company with the click of a button.  As for the company name, it can be rendered as "Gulf and Western," "Gulf & Western," or "Gulf + Western," but should remain consistent throughout the article.
 * Gulf and Western was chosen. Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the sentence on being a top five arcade game manufacturer, this is by revenue generated by arcade cabinet sales in 1982. The top five were, if memory serves, Bally, Atari, Williams, Sega, and Stern Electronics.  This needs to be sourced, however, for it to remain in the article.
 * I rephrased it to say it was one of the largest and combined it with the note on how much revenue it brought in.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not believe your complaint about Sega's revenue is actionable. Company revenues peaked at $214 million in 1982.  Company revenues presumably started at $0 when the company was first incorporated.  The sentence is merely giving the reader a sense of Sega's scale in the early 1980s to provide general background for the main subject.  The article does not need a detailed accounting of Sega's finances at the time, as it is not directly relevant to the subject matter.
 * In the early 1980s, Sega Enterprises Inc. was an American company. Sega began as a Japanese company formed by the 1965 merger of two businesses founded by Americans in Japan.  After being purchased by Gulf and Western in 1969, Sega moved its headquarters first to Hawaii, then Hong Kong, and finally to the Los Angeles area.  Therefore, the Japanese operation was a subsidiary of Sega Enterprises, Inc., which in turn was a subsidiary of Gulf and Western.  In 1984, Gulf and Western sold off the Japanese business, which became Sega Enterprises Ltd.  This Japanese company is the entity we think of as Sega today, which is of course now a part of Sega Sammy.  Not making any claim as to whether the article should be clearer on these points or not, but I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page in terms of the history.
 * I think it would be fair to say the differences between the SG-1000 and the SG-2000 were slight and the analogy to various Game Boy and PS models you use is accurate.
 * It likely is, and that's also why I bundled SG-1000 and SG-1000 II into one article and Mark III with this article, but because sources refer to them as different consoles except for Mark III and Master System, I would prefer to continue to refer to them as different consoles to remain consistent with the sourcing.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article jumps straight to the release of the product because there is no development information on the SG-1000, the Mark III, or the Master System in English-language sources. The article is also thin on marketing strategy, sales performance and marketshare over time, and details on the system's success in Western Europe and Brazil.  As such, I would tend to think this article fails the FA criteria on comprehensiveness grounds.  I was happy to promote this to GA status earlier this year, but I certainly never felt it was FA-worthy at that time, and little has been done to expand the article since. Indrian (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the show of support, I guess. I would encourage you to reread some sections of the article; I've done about as much as I can fleshing out the interior, but having scrounged as many reliable sources as I can find over and over, I'm not sure there's really that much to say.  It would seem that Sega's marketing of the Master System was quite ineffective due to the size of their marketing department and Nintendo's established foothold, although Virgin Mastertronic had more luck marketing it in Europe where Nintendo had not been so effective.  I've added bits from more sources into the article to reflect this.  No, this article doesn't have a year-by-year breakdown like Sega Genesis does, but likewise I doubt the differences are quite so significant for this to be any different than what the overall says.  There are a lot of figures already present to reflect the system's success in some regions and failure in others, and I've also fleshed out bits about the system's reception during its lifespan  Aside from the development information which is absent from the sources, albeit with an enhanced background section, I wouldn't say it's any less comprehensive than Sega CD, which is also a featured article.  In any regard, specific concerns on missing information can be brought to me and I'll do my best to flesh a particular part out; I really don't think it's missing much, if anything significant really at all, and that which is is because it doesn't exist in reliable sources and thus really isn't known for sure.  If this article does fail on comprehensiveness grounds, then it's likely destined never to be a featured article unless new sources are written (which I've even found some in just the last couple of months), but I would rather try and see what the community thinks than to pass it off forever.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 15:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't quite determine the tone of your first sentence, but I really do support your efforts to make these console articles better and believe you have done wonderful work on the SMS. I believe your recent additions have cured my concern regarding thin info on marketing by SOA and in Europe.  I believe there is still a little more that can be said about the Tonka days, for which I believe reliable sources exist.  There are also a couple of articles that give market share info at a couple points in the U.S.  Also, the article fails to mention Atari, which is important, because there is a common misconception that Sega was second to Nintendo in the U.S. when in fact they were third.  I would be happy to take a stab at some of this if you like.  I do agree that the amount of detail in the Genesis article is not necessary since this system was an also ran.


 * The lack of development info is more troubling, though I am not sure what the answer is there. Clearly, the sources do not exist in English.  I imagine there are at least some sources in Japanese, but that does not help the English-language Wikipedia.  I certainly do not believe that a detailed blow-by-blow account filled with anecdotes is necessary, but right now there is absolutely nothing.  Sega CD is a good example of a dev section on a less successful/less written about console that does a good job of placing the development in context while providing a couple of specific facts.


 * So, to summarize. Excellent job on the article, which mines most of the available sources well.  There is more that can be said on U.S. market share and Tonka, which I am happy to help with.  Development is at a stalemate.  I am not sure I am comfortable supporting the article for FA without a little more in development, but I fully admit that this is an idiosyncratic view of the comprehensiveness requirement, which only requires the article to reflect what has appeared in reliable sources.  I will certainly not oppose the article on those grounds, and would encourage anyone who thinks the article is up to snuff to add their own support. Indrian (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a minor note,, it's allowed to use foreign-language sources. The presumption is that you can understand them okay. Moreover, it seems that sources in foreign languages are given the benefit of the doubt more often when it comes to reliability, as an exercise in the tolerance we Anglophones are totally rightly known for. Tezero (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The tone was merely disappointment, that's all, . It's not the way that I pictured this FAC starting out, but the end result is what matters.  I have been considering the development issue, and I have to wonder if the reason we lack development info is because the Mark III/Master System wasn't developed outright.  Bear with me on this as a theory, albeit original research at this point that may explain the problem: it's fairly common knowledge that the Master System uses an 8-bit Zilog Z80 as its processor; after all, that was also a sound chip on Sega's System 16 architecture that became the Sega Genesis.  I also found in my research for SG-1000, a good article that will likely never be featured due to lack of sources, that the 1000 and 1000 II also used a Z80 running at the same speed.  That may very well mean that when Retro Gamer refers to Sega continuing to work on their hardware for developing the Mark III, which became the Master System, that the same basic architecture was used.  Now, to play devil's advocate here: the Mark III game library is different than the SG-1000 library and the SG-1000 can't play Mark III titles, but Mark III and Japanese Master Systems can play SG-1000 titles.


 * I would be more than glad to accept some help with adding more about Tonka and US market share; I've always been very thrilled to have your help with the articles I've focused on, to which I credit having several of my FAs because of your support with some of the material - namely, just about all of them have at least a paragraph or two from you. I'm sure I could use a bit of help with Atari, too - sources seem a little dodgy on it probably because Nintendo blew them so much out of the water that that's the main competitive focus in the articles.


 * Toward Absolutely no problem with foreign-language sources - this article uses at least one Portuguese source and several Japanese sources - but the point is that it's a lot harder to find sources in foreign languages when you don't speak it or read it.  I can read English and Spanish (and somewhat navigate Portuguese based on similarities to Spanish), but that's it; I can't read Japanese.  That makes it just that much harder to find.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And just to back up my theory on the system's development; from Sega themselves, note the model number for the Sega Mark III is "SG-1000M3"  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not fluent, but I can read a fair amount of it and have dug up Japanese-language sources before. I'll see if I can find anything, though I'm not optimistic as old development information in general isn't easy to come by. Tezero (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really finding anything reliable so far other than this thing on its sound chip, which looks redundant, and this, which looks to be about its programming (you might recognize "BASIC") but from which I can't select the words I don't know to Google-Translate. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, how's this revision? I think that'll do the basic job, at least ;)   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into Japanese sources. I do not know if this will help, but two names you might want to include in your searches are Masami Ishikawa and Minoru Kidooka.  According to the sparse English info available, both of them were working on console hardware at Sega during this period and may have had a hand in the Mark III/Master System. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the double ping, but I stumbled across more than I'd thought existed and put together some other information, and made a development section. It's not the greatest, but I think it should alleviate any concerns.  Can you look it over, fact-check it, and make sure it's accurate?  Thank you,  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem on the double ping. I think you have a valid point about the Master System being a continuation of the SG-1000, so I guess it is fair to say that the SG-1000 article would be the proper place for most of the development info I feel is lacking here.  As such, I am more or less satisfied after the current rewrite.  There is one important point, however that Edge gets wrong: Hideki Sato was not in charge of developing the system.  The proof is in two parts.  First, here is a Sega 16 profile on Sato that states he was not placed in charge of R&D until 1989.  The article draws this information from a brief PDF biographical sketch linked at the bottom of the article.  Unfortunately, the link is now dead and does not appear to be present in the Internet Archive.  I have a copy of the original PDF and can confirm its contents.  The PDF has no info that needs to be cited in this article, so I do not believe there is a need to actually produce it.  The second proof is this article from Silinonera that is also used in the Genesis article.  It states that Masami Ishikawa was Sega's lead hardware designer in this period.  Sato may well have worked on the Master System, but he did not lead its design.


 * As for the rest, I will get a small amount of Tonka and sales info into the article, hopefully tomorrow, but Wednesday at the latest. After that, I will have to parse the rest of the article as well, but with the development matter cleared up, I believe I will be able to support eventually after all other concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed Sato from the mention just to be sure; thanks for the fact check. I'll be looking at the other concerns tomorrow or Tuesday; it's late where I'm at and I do have work in the morning.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 04:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your concerns.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also now addressed some of the issues that were brought up in your responses. I look forward to your great help in regard to the Atari 7800 and Tonka's marketing.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

 * Feel free to revert any of my copyedits. It'll only make me cry.
 * I won't touch them; by far I don't claim to be the most skilled copyeditor on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I understand the intended humor here.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't set the pixel size of images without a good reason, as it overrides user settings.
 * Never been an issue brought to my attention before; may be because sometimes I still edit like it's 2008 (long story). I've removed them for the thumbnail images; I'd prefer to leave them for the inset table in the Technical specifications unless there's a way to make that work without making the images gigantic and completely screw up the whole thing.  If there is, I'd be okay with making such a fix.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alt text would be nice for images
 * Done.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Master System (マスターシステム Masutā Shisutemu?): I don't think it's reasonable to assume that readers will know those funny characters are Japanese—I strongly recommend adding "|lead=yes" to the template
 * Done.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 8-bit third-generation video game console this reads as if it were one link, when it's two. Could it be reworded to break up the links?
 * I removed "8-bit" for now. It seems a bit extraneous anyway.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * redesigned and retitled the Master System for release in 1986 in North America, 1987 in Europe and Japan, and 1989 in Brazil: a few issues here:
 * "redesigned and retitled the Master System" doesn't read well—at first blush, it reads as if it were "redisgned the Master System" and "retitled the Master System"
 * Was it limited to these markets? If yes, that should be stated; otherwise it comes off as cherrypicking random markets (Brazil?  Huh?)
 * I'll note my reworking of this sentence below, but the rest of the article notes a bit why Brazil is slightly more noteworthy than some other markets; Master System has enjoyed a very unique success in Brazil where it's still being supported, though through different hardware now, by Sega distributor Tectoy.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So it the rebranded/redesigned versino was released in Japan in 1987; the wording makes it almost seem like it was released there in 1987 for the first time
 * I've finished reworking this sentence into a couple of different ones to rectify these issues. I'd really like to keep Brazil on the basis of its notability in the article; while Japan, North America, and Europe are the "usual three regions", Brazil is a little special in this particular instance because of its history in the region, and details about its unique history are in the body of the article and sourced.  If you disagree, however, I will remove it.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * also served as the base structure: what does "base structure" mean here?
 * Entirely rephrased.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Retrospective reception: ?? Is there such a thing?
 * I don't think it's such a confusing term, but I'll reword it. "Reception to the system given in retrospect" work well enough here?   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A downturn in the arcade business starting in 1982: this was gaming in genereal, and not just arcades, wasn't it?
 * Just a point of history here. In that time period, the arcade and consumer businesses were very different markets with only a small amount of overlap in terms of involved companies (Atari being the most prominent one).  They were also on different business cycles.  Without going into too much detail, the arcade industry began to collapse in mid-1982 due to over saturation of the market (too many arcades and street locations) and bottomed out in 1984.  The home market crashed in 1983 due to oversaturation (too many publishers stuffing retail channels with too much product) and bottomed out in 1985.  These were two separate events that overlapped for a time.  Sega was barely in the home market, only establishing a consumer division right before the market crash, so it was hurt far more seriously by the collapse of the arcade market.  Therefore, the article is accurate on this point. Indrian (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably a good idea to throw in a footnote on this, then, as I image I'm not the only one who would assume they were the same downturn. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Designed by Sega's "Away Team" internal division: what do the quotes signify?
 * Restructured the sentence to emphasize this is a name.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * redesigned new iteration: is there a difference between "redesigned new iteration" and "redesigned iteration"?
 * Redundancy removed.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * SC-3000—a computerized version of the SG-1000: meaning?
 * Linked home computer here and changed "computerized" to "computer". Essentially the meaning is a version that was turned into a computer.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Edge, lessons from the SG-1000's lack of commercial success were used in the hardware redesign of the Mark III.: what kinds of lessons, and how were they used?
 * Done.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * against a white marker board: is this supposed to be a "whiteboard"?
 * Adjusted.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * although plans to release a cheaper "Base System" also influenced the decision: what is this, and how did it influence the naming decision?
 * Rephrased to note the Base System as a console concept, and noted similarity of the names as an influence.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * whereby Nintendo required that titles for the Famicom not be published on other consoles.: is there something good to link to here? I'd've thought there'd be an article on this.
 * Strangely there doesn't seem to be one, which has me a little surprised myself (not even Nintendo marketing seems to be useful, although that would likely be the logical place to put it). It has been my experience that video game law is a little soft on Wikipedia; I did the FA on Sega v. Accolade and at that time in 2013, there still wasn't an article on Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, which was one of the most important video game law cases in the same vein as Sega v. Accolade.  It has an article now, fortunately.  I've discussed with a few other users the missing gap as well about 1993 hearings on video game violence that led to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board; I'm sure a few new articles will have to come out of this at some point.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * to port games from other developers, albeit with little success.: the games, the attempts, or the ports were unsuccessful?
 * Clarified.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * NEC later used the same strategy on some of Sega's titles when developing games for the PC Engine: why not say "TurboGrafx-16" instead of PC Engine?
 * Fixed.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * with a typical project being allotted only three months of development time: what's a "typical project"? The SMS?
 * Project has been changed to "game".  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * blocking localization of several popular video game titles: what does this mean?
 * Game localization linked.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was distributed by Mastertronic in the United Kingdom, Master Games in France, and Bertelsmann in Germany.: was it limited to these three markets?
 * That's how it appears from the source. This would also make sense: we know from the source that Sega provided limited inventory for the launch, so if they only had a small number of consoles, it would make sense to focus on the three largest markets in Europe. Indrian (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * deliver inventory until Boxing Day,: should probably explain Boxing Day
 * Added the date of December 26, the day that Boxing Day is.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nintendo's less effective approaches in Europe: any details on Nintendo's approaches?
 * David Sheff's book Game Over would be the go to source for this. Basically, Sega ended up backing Mastertronic as a single Euope-wide distributor that enjoyed strong support from Sega and could coordinate strategies across European markets, while Nintendo relied on a patchwork of distributors of varying effectiveness and did not pay much attention to the region on a corporate level until about 1992. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd briefly describe it, then, if you've got the sources for it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Master System held a significant part of the video game console market in Europe through the release of Sega's succeeding console, the Sega Genesis (known as Mega Drive in territories outside of North America).: since this is in a European context, shouldn't it be referred to as the Mega Drive? Also, was it called the Mega Drive in Britain?
 * This one was me being overly cautious; I worked on Sega Genesis and was in the firestorm around that naming debate that's gone on for literally over ten years. I feel a tad uncomfortable with linking it as it is only on grounds of consistency across the encyclopedia, being it's the first use in the body of either Mega Drive or Sega Genesis and I removed the explanation as being redundant and linked Mega Drive directly, but I'm good with it.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna stop here. I didn't actually intend to do a full review of the article—I only stopped by to mention the bit about the Japanese text, and then just continued. I may or may not return to finish the review. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look through in the next few days; should be a breeze to address.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 14:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've addressed most of your concerns and responded to the rest. I would very much encourage you to give it a full review given how far you've gone already; I would really be looking forward to your support after all concerns have been addressed.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pls do not solicit support from reviewers, they can make up their own minds, and note that Curly stated above that he may or may post a complete review. When I have time to walk through all comments I may be able to determine if it's appropriate to promote in any case, or if we need further input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on prose, though I still think a clarification of the 1982 downturn would be very helpful for those of us who might confuse it with the near-contemporary console downturn. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - this article looks decent enough to be an FA given that the above concerns have been addressed here and there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, .  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 15:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Status: Passed
 * Image review


 * File:Master System Logo.svg - PD/Commons, but I don't understand this image. It says that it's a fanmade version, with the 't' slightly off- but it also says that it's not eligible for copyright since it's just text. If that's the case, why not have the actual logo?
 * File:Mark III Logo.png - Non-free with rationale, but given that it's also just text, this should be ineligible for copyright? Just like the above image, or File:SEGA logo.svg.
 * File:Sega-Master-System-Set.jpg - PD/Commons (Evan-Amos credited)
 * File:Sega Mark III.jpg - CC-BY-SA/Commons (Muband credited)
 * File:Master System II.jpg - PD/Commons (Darz Mol credited)
 * File:Sega-Mega-Drive-JP-Mk1-Console-Set.jpg - PD/Commons (Evan-Amos credited)
 * File:Sega GameGear 003.jpg - CC-BY/Commons (Inthepockets credited)
 * File:KL NEC uPD780C.jpg - PD/Commons/OTRS (Konstantin Lanzet credited)
 * File:Sega-Master-System-Controllers.jpg - PD/Commons (Evan-Amos credited)
 * File:SMS-Light-Phaser.jpg - PD/Commons (Evan-Amos credited)
 * File:Sega-Masters-Sys-3D-Glasses.jpg - PD/Commons (Evan-Amos credited)
 * File:Scompact.jpg - CC-BY-SA/Commons (Rick Browser credited)
 * File:Master system girl transparent.png - PD/Commons (Jtalledo credited)
 * File:PhantasyStarBattle.JPG - non-free, FUR, tiny res, not replaceable as there's no PD Master System game screenshots


 * Almost a pass- Logo1 needs to be the actual logo, not a slightly off version for no good reason; logo2 needs to get marked as ineligible for copyright and moved to commons. The only actually non-free image is the game screenshot, and it is fine. -- Pres N  19:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Both images rectified.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 23:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now passed; see if you can move the Mark III logo to commons sometime. -- Pres N  05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Status: Passed
 * Source review
 * Just taking these in order through the refs, including both style and substance concerns.
 * Ref 1 has not publisher for the book
 * Ref 4- "1st ed. ed."
 * Ref 7 has no publisher for the magazine, which you did do in ref 3
 * Ref 8- New York Times is not linked, and it's "The" NYT- as you did correctly in ref 34
 * Ref 9- "The" Miami Herald, and link it
 * Ref 11- no publisher given, even though you did in ref 10. Also, link Wired.
 * Ref 13- "The", and link
 * Ref 15- do you have a month/year for this issue? (optional)
 * Ref 22/23- link Sega of Japan, like you did in the last 3 refs
 * Ref 24- publisher for Game Informer
 * Ref 27- it's "AllGame", not "Allgame"
 * Ref 28- uh, full name for NYT, please
 * Ref 29- link Sega
 * Ref 30/32- link Retro Gamer
 * Ref 33- link Minneapolis Star Tribune, change HITS to Hits as per WP:ALLCAPS
 * Ref 34- ALLCAPS
 * Ref 36- link Retro Gamer, add publisher
 * Ref 39- AllGame
 * Ref 40- second author's name is backwards. You can use last1, first1, last2, first2 parameters for multiple authors
 * Ref 41,42- link Sega
 * Ref 43- link Joystiq
 * Ref 46- author3 is backwards, link magazine, add publisher
 * Ref 49- link IGN
 * Ref 50- link book
 * Ref 51- link magazine, add publisher
 * Ref 53/56- add publisher for Playthings
 * Ref 57- link IGN
 * Ref 58- publisher for Screen Digest
 * Ref 59- link Nintendo
 * No concerns on sources used- all RSs/used in recent prior FAs
 * Spotchecks: checked 5 or so references, came back clean.
 * Consider archiving all your online references, so that future website changes/closures don't affect the article. Additionally, since it's been unstable, consider double-archiving that 1up.com webarchive backup at webcitation.org, so that robots.txt changes won't touch it. -- Pres N  19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and given it a cleanup - If you don't mind, I do prefer the "link it only once" mindset, so not everything is to your words, but hopefully it should all be cleaned up. I'll look at archiving as soon as I can.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 23:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You missed some minor bits, but I fixed them. Wasn't sure which way you were going on linking, but guessed (wrongly) as you had linked Sega of Japan several times. Now passed. -- Pres N  05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments made by GamerPro64
Marking my claim to review this article. Will get started by tomorrow. GamerPro64 20:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , are you still planning to review? Tezero (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, Tezero. I have been unable to read the article due to IRL work. I'll get around to it this weekend. GamerPro64  05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So after reading through the entire article, I'm confident in giving Support to it becoming a Featured Article. GamerPro64  01:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.