Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega Genesis/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 User:GrahamColm 10:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC).

Sega Genesis

 * Nominator(s): Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past..., Sexy Kick  16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC), 


 * ''Notified: WikiProject Video games

From the bottom of Wikipedia's worst to one of Wikipedia's best in just a few months, Sega Genesis has been, strangely enough, one of Wikipedia's most controversial articles for years. There's a reason it's listed at WP:LAME: a naming dispute has plagued this article for years, leaving the material to wither. However, with the most recent RFC on the title resulting in stability, finally the article has had the opportunity to receive a total facelift in the last two months. The references were weeded out and ensured to be reliable, the prose was reworked, and the depth of the subject material was explored and reworked as well. In October 2013, this article went through a very tough GA nomination, resulting in a lot of improvements and consensus discussions about aspects of the article as well. It may still need just a tad bit of touchup (in which case I hope the FA reviewers will help to point these out so we can make these changes as need be), but there's a dedicated team of writers behind this article, and this three-person co-nomination should be a great indicator of that. In addition, I'd like to recognize for his contributions and assistance with the article, though he is currently on an extended wikibreak and has asked not to be involved with discussion about the article anymore. Let's make this one happen, and show Wikipedia that even though an article has been in poor shape and under dispute for years, it can still have a future and be an excellent article with some hard work. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just wanna point out that Ref 50 is a dead link.  GamerPro64  00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done - replaced with archive URL. Not sure how I missed that.  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ssh... Using graphics are discouraged here as they slow down loading times.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 11:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Number 77 isn't working for me.
 * Looks like they took it offline. I'll change it to a cite journal since it's a magazine.--Sexy Kick 02:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already removed the link, it's a "cite news" as it is. Red Phoenix  build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ideally inlines should only follow punctuation; saw at least one instance in Aggressive marketing.
 * Odd how this was missed. Fixed.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember to only wikilink the first instance of an article in the body (Sega Master System in Launch, for instance).
 * This particular instance has been rectified. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Inconsistent bolding. Consoles are bolded later in the article but not at the beginning. I am of the opinion that they don't need to be bolded outside of the lead anyways.
 * So, to be clear, you believe that the numerous variations should not need bolded titles? <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, like the Sega CD, 32x, etc. I mean the lead is fine of course, but in the body they probably don't need to be.

Will add more later once I've had a thorough read. — <span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;"><font color="#000000">Mr. V (t – c)   01:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As you've requested, all bolding has been removed save for the lead. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 03:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick check
In the lead, first sentence "in most regions", the order can be confusing and in what regions is it not "Mega Drive" 'outside of North America'? Yes, that is how terrible the line reads. Given the worldwide common name is some form of "Mega Drive" I wonder how best to address the situation. I'd almost prefer the Sega Genesis, as a worldwide stand out, be mentioned as the exception to "Mega Drive" and damn the North American release to its fitting place in the worldwide scheme of things. The second part of the sentence is a run on as noted by the logical gap and desire to take a breath after the Ltd: "and marketed by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. first released in Japan in 1988 and later released worldwide." In short the last paragraph of the lead is no different, but the lead is also very short and doesn't work as a very brief overview of the subject. While it may discuss the contents, it doesn't do so in a way that meets 1a or 2a. The actual contents itself looks better, but I'm going to stop for now simply because the lead alone needs to be completely re-written and expanded to 4-5 paragraphs. I am also noticing some numbers errors. The "40 million" estimate for units sold is not given as an estimate in the infobox nor as an approximate as listed in the body. And yes, there is a difference. I also looked up the Sega Genesis 3, and aside from being mentioned, it is not covered in the third party variations nor along with the other derivations. As part of the comprehensive criteria I am adamant that these releases be covered because the current coverage is inadequete and only raises more loose ends. We barely get a sentence about the CSD-GM1 which was in a "boombox". Many issues exist and I think it is far too soon before this can even be considered featured article candidate. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is Sega's third and most successful console in terms of both sales and marketshare, selling well in North America and Europe, and less so in Japan." - This sentence has pretty big issues for obvious reasons.
 * "Its arcade game ports, first Sonic the Hedgehog release, wide array of first and third-party sports titles, and aggressive youth marketing greatly contributed to its success." - Same as above, choppy and disorienting.
 * "Two years after its debut, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), which sparked a "console war" that predominated over video gaming's 16-bit era." - Aside from introducing something entirely unrelated to the rest of the paragraph, it places the SNES in front of the topic to introduce this "console war".
 * "The console's hardware is based on Sega's System 16 arcade board." Gosh. That's all I get in the lead? The technical details also gloss over the point, but the history makes the statement from the lead... but the flow is bad.
 * ". Its games are delivered on ROM-based cartridges, the licensing and reverse engineering of which became the subject of a lawsuit." Too many questions raised here.
 * "The console is backwards compatible with its predecessor's game cartridges via an adapter, while its own library consists of over 900 games." Lacking clarity.
 * "Controversy surrounding violent titles like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat led to Sega's Videogame Rating Council, a predecessor to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board." - Surprise link with the "controversy"! How is this relevant to the rest of the paragraph? So far it seems to just spit out the contents in a haphazard way with little regard for the previous sentences.
 * It says "most regions" because it was also called something different in Korea. Thank you for the comprehensive lead analysis. I was never a big fan of the current lead, and I guess we need to go back to the drawing board with it. I was curious in what you might think of the lead we had a month ago, (with the lead Red Phoenix had written).


 * The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a 16-bit video game console that was released in 1988 by Sega in Japan (as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?)), 1989 in North America, and 1990 in Europe, Australasia, and Brazil, under the name Mega Drive. In South Korea it was distributed by Samsung and was first known as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed. The Genesis was the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in continental Europe and North America, where it competed against a wide range of platforms, including dedicated gaming consoles and home computer systems. Two years later, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), and the competition between the two would dominate the 16-bit era of video gaming. Based on Sega's System 16 arcade board, the console began production in Japan in 1988 as the "Mark V", and later achieved market success in North America and Europe. With sales of 40 million units, the Genesis was Sega's most successful console.


 * In Japan, the Mega Drive initially did not fare well against its two main competitors, Nintendo's Famicom and NEC's PC-Engine. However, it achieved much greater success in North America (where it was rebranded as the Sega Genesis) and in Europe, capturing the majority of the market share. Contributing to its success were its library of arcade-game conversions, the success of Sonic the Hedgehog, and aggressive advertisement that positioned it as the "cool" console for mature gamers. The Genesis and Mega Drive also benefited from numerous peripherals and several network services, as well as multiple third-party variations of the console that focused on extending its functionality. Though Sega dominated the market in North America and Europe for several years, the release of the SNES posed serious competition, and the console and several of its highest-profile games gained significant legal scrutiny on matters involving reverse engineering and video game violence.


 * The console and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts. Licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced, and several indie game developers are producing games for it. Many games have also been re-released in compilations for newer consoles and offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 13:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually like that one much better, though some wording could be tightened up. It might be easier to put to the "generation" right in the lead instead of dancing about it with "first of its generation". The SNES takes up a bit too much of the mentality here. I'd almost prefer to place that altogether to avoid making readers venture to the SNES article. Though I'll have to take another look at it tomorrow to pick apart this lead, I do think this is better than the one currently in use. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I have started my own revision of the lead in sandbox that uses this one as a base and incorporates a few other things as well. Feel free to continue offering feedback on this version, however, as I can incorporate that into my revision as well. Indrian (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead has always been an issue of awkward compromise; with so many groups of editors fighting over it, especially with the naming dispute that plagued this article for years. I believe that's why the lead I proposed a while back wasn't used, but it is as it is, and I have no complaints with making amendments as needed.  I will try to help as much as I can, but I work in retail and this is a busy time of year.
 * 209.255.230.32, while I politely respect your opinion, I strongly disagree with your comments that this article is nowhere near even being worth a candidacy. I disagree with several of your raised points: unless specific third-party variations of the console show significant notability, I don't see expansion as being more than excessive directory-like information.  Existence of reliable sources is a good barometer of this; a lack of coverage on the individual third-party variations, including the Sega Genesis 3 which was made by Majesco, indicate that little impact on the impact and notability of the console result from these third-party variations, and no more than a mention of their existence is necessary, such as the case with the emulators in the last section.  I don't think it takes away anything by not stuffing it full of information about things that had little impact on the console and its legacy; those units that are worthy of more coverage as units themselves are covered in their respective articles, such as Pioneer LaserActive (and that's not to say another article or two couldn't be fashioned; JVC Wondermega might have enough, for instance.  Now, as for the remainder of your notes so far; I'm glad to have such notes on little issues, but that doesn't make it "far from candidacy".  That's part of what this process is for; to hash out issues and improve the article to a point where the community can say it's worth being an FA.  I seriously doubt every article that comes here is perfect, and that absolute perfection is the standard to bring it here.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also want to mention, I disagree with "4-5 paragraphs" for the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, lead sections should typically not exceed 4 paragraphs, and in fact I disagree with 4 entirely in most articles I am a major contributor to: three, in this case, I believe is a more appropriate number.  Paragraph one is usually an introduction to the subject matter and notes about what makes it notable, paragraph two is a summative abstract of the article's contents (as a video game editor, usually up to the end of the product's life), and paragraph three summarizes the legacy, reception, and closes out the section in a smooth transition to the content.  In shorter articles, I combine the second and third paragraphs, and such is my preferred approach.  4-5 paragraphs in any lead section is, to me, always excessive and in few cases does it read smoothly.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 03:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Per discussions at Talk:Sega Genesis, this article now has a new lead section, which was agreed upon by consensus of the article's nominators. This should resolve many issues with the past, ever-so-controversial lead.  Speaking from a perspective of an active editor during the lead debates, I think it could be safely argued that issues with the lead before were another result of the long-held naming debate, and that discussions about the lead section could essentially be construed as debate by proxy; debating about one issue to really try and hammer a point about another.  I feel pretty good about this new lead, though; more so than I ever have, and I'm sure User:Indrian and User:SexyKick do as well.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 22:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead remains excruciatingly detailed. A detailed release-history stretching to seven years after original release isn't really needed anywhere in the article, leave alone the first paragraph of the lead. The prose is too verbose, studded with several wordy phrases ("developed, manufactured, and marketed", repeated "first and third-party", repeated "North America and in Europe" [can probably just go with "the West"], compounded by "United States and the United Kingdom", "fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts") that don't add much.
 * Oppose from self-locked-out User:Indopug

Put another way, the lead uses a lot of words to say very little, very joylessly. Just look at the how all the punch of the wonderful phrase "console war" is drained out by the verbiage around it: 'resulted in a fierce battle for market share in those territories that has often been termed a "console war" by journalists and historians'.

Further, the second para seems to be written for advanced engineers ("hardware was adapted from Sega's System 16 arcade board, centered around a Motorola 68000 processor as a primary CPU and a Zilog Z80 as a secondary processor ... delivered on ROM-based cartridges"), not the general reader or even a video-game fan. Things that would interest the general public--how the Genesis' gaming experience was different, what critics thought of it, how it changed the gaming industry, what people think of it looking back 20 years later--i.e. broad, subjective stuff, is entirely missing. It looks to be missing from the rest of the article as well.

Taking a peak at the rest of the article, the prose isn't much better ("Accolade's games if Accolade were to be licensed, preventing Accolade from releasing its games to other systems. To get around licensing, Accolade"). And jargon remains: "lower price point", instead of "cheaper". The article needs a thorough relook that is beyond the scope of FAC.—User:Indopug (122.164.120.100 (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC))
 * Wow. Well, if nothing else, I agree with what you're saying about the punch being completely removed from the phrase "console war".--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 07:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, at the risk of being undiplomatic I am going to be blunt: if you believe that naming the processor used in the system and mentioning ROM cartridges means this lead is written for advanced engineers, then you have no business reviewing this article for content. None of the major contributors of this article are engineers, so it would be impossible for us to engage that audience.  Every general history of video games, all of which are written for the layman, plays up the distinction between ROM cartridges and CDs due to the major changes increased storage brought to the industry, so any reader interested in learning more about video game history is going to know what a ROM-based cartridge is or is going to have to educate himself in a hurry.  Pretty much every article written for the layman on a specific console also gives the system's basic technical attributes, and the processor used in each is incredibly important, as all of the early console generations were defined in terms of their processor.  The move from 8-bit to 16-bit to 32-bit was hyped in the general press and played a significant role in the marketing campaigns of these systems, which were also geared towards the general public.  I have taken some of your prose criticisms to heart and already made a couple of changes (I am embarrassed that triple Accolade sentence was not caught sooner), but since you clearly do not know what aspects of a video game console are important to highlight to insure the article meets the comprehensiveness requirements of FAC and the relative emphasis requirements of WP:LEAD, I am afraid your content critique is off base. Indrian (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Indopug. In response to some of your comments:
 * There's nothing wrong with the prose being "verbose" as long as it's not full of jargon. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Simple English Wikipedia.  The idea is to have engaging prose, not simplistic prose; sentence and paragraph fluency are paramount, but if sentences flow well, they need not be simple.  In fact, putting together only simple sentences makes sentence fluency terrible.
 * Punch of "console war" - WP:WEASEL, "console war" is a commonly used term by the video game community, but it's important not to directly call it that or else that is original research and pushing a point of view. The way it's phrased now avoids WP:NPOV issues, and possible WP:OR like that which existed in the old Console wars article (now redirected to History of video games).
 * How is "lower price point" jargon? "Cheaper" may be the more common word, but I doubt you'll find someone who doesn't know what "lower price point" means.
 * Completely agree with Indrian's comments on the tech specs above. We actually stripped out most of what was in the tech specs before, but knowing where the console came from is important to understanding it.  We've done our best to avoid excessive detail, which I think was done quite well in this article without getting too engrossed in unsourceable and tech manual-like specs.
 * Things that would interest the general public: read the History section for "how the Genesis gaming experience was different" (particularly Launch, Aggressive marketing, and Sonic the Hedgehog subsections) and the Legacy and revival section for "what people think of it looking back 20 years later". How it changed the gaming industry is a moot point; it ties in with what people think of it looking back 20 years later extensively, and the issues and features that did so are outlined in the History, Tech specs, Add-ons, and Game library sections - essentially, the entire article does so, especially subsections like Sonic the Hedgehog, Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade, and Videogame Rating Council.  Critical reception at the time is a tougher gig, but at the same point, I think that sales figures say more about how it was received at the time than the opinions of a couple of critics, and this article possesses detailed info on how much market share Sega controlled at periodic times during the life of the Genesis.  All four of your points, therefore, have been answered and are in the article.
 * Respectfully, I must disagree with a large part of your feedback. There are certainly some minor notes such as the triple Accolade sentence mentioned, but I don't think anything major is missing or mishandled in the article.  I believe everything has been given its due weight and that subjectively this article covers all of the bases in terms of content without being excessive and unnecessarily detailed.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to delve too much into this at the moment, but how is it original research for us to call it a console war, when we have quite the handful of sources that call it such? The way we've weaseled out of referring to it with effective punch in the lead, and renaming the Console Wars section "Aggressive Marketing" when the former is entirely more accurate and descriptive really waters it down IMO. Even Steven Kent wrote a chapter about the 16-bit console war. Its title? "The War". Further more the Super NES article was able to call it Console Wars, and that one achieved FA status with the section titled that. And how effective it reads.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 05:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Journalists have defined it as a "console war", but if we did not specify that, then what is a "console war"? Is it a pair of consoles going at it in a physical fight to see which one can break the other in two pieces first?  A little bit ridiculous, but I hope you see my point.  It's a jargon term coined by a few journalists, so we have to specify that it is, or else no one will understand and it will appear as though we invented the term, creating an OR issue.  The SNES article got by with a section header called Console wars because at the time, there was an article called Console wars and there was a main template right below it with a link to the article, essentially attempting to be consistent and specify that article as part of the reading material to understand the subject fully.  As it turns out, "Console wars" the article was itself redirected a couple of months ago for being full of... you guessed it, OR.  When working with a term coined by a group that may not be instantly recognizable, it's always important to tread the waters carefully.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

 * Per WP:LEAD, a lead should fairly all of summarize the most important sections of on article, without providing important information not covered in the article body. I know I may be stepping into dangerous territory here, but it seems like the first paragraph of the lead is a bit too concerned to list all the names the console has gone by, when that information does not seem particularly important given the coverage in the article's body. For instance, the fact that it was released as Tec Toy in Brazil and Super Gam*Boy and Super Aladdin Boy in South Korea is only mentioned in a brief paragraph at the end of the "launch" section, and the names "Virgin Mastertronic" and "Ozisoft" are not mentioned outside the lead at all. It seems to me that the various names should either be in their own section of the article, or else incorporated into the history section, whichever is most appropriate; but either way, the lead should not devote unnecessary detail on a point that the article body treats as minor.
 * I believe it's there for identification purposes. There's a full paragraph on this in the Launch subsection.  I think the reason names have been emphasized so much is that this article has had, for years, WP:WORLDVIEW issues, which were resolved during the rewrite of this article.  More importantly, though, it's been a point of contention in the naming debate of "Sega Genesis" v. "Mega Drive" for years on this article.  Also, it's not released as "Tec Toy", in Brazil, it was released in Brazil by a company called Tec Toy.  I'm sure, though, that we can copy the extra details down, and if you are still sure they should be removed from the lead, we can do that.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Info about Virgin Mastertronic and Ozisoft have been added to the bodies, with sources. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that the "worldview" issues have been resolved, and I understand that the unfortunate naming dispute has had an effect on the article. It was necessary to include information about Tec Toy and Ozisoft in the body if that info is in the lead, however, and I'm glad to see that that was done. Also, I see that I misread the nature of Ozisoft and Tec Toy due to an ambiguity in the lead's wording. (I'd read it as meaning "...released as the Mega Drive by Virgin Mastertronic in Europe, as Ozisoft in Australasia, and as Tec Toy in Brazil", when it's actually the "by" clause that's listed. Could you make this explicit like this? "...released as the Mega Drive by Virgin Mastertronic in Europe, by Ozisoft in Australasia, and by Tec Toy in Brazil." – Quadell (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Indrian (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The direct quote "console war" in the lead needs a citation. The term "cool", if quoted, should probably also have a citation. (I would just leave out the quote marks, personally; no one is being quoted, and you're really referring to the general aesthetic, which the linked article covers.)
 * I've added two citations for "console war", and dequoted "cool". <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Some facts in the infobox are sourced, and others are not. It seems to me that facts only need to be sourced in the infobox if they are not mentioned (and sourced) in the article body, or if they are particularly contentious. For this reason, it's good that Sonic 1's sales figure (15 million) is sourced in the infobox. But I don't think the fact that 40 million units were sold, or that Sega discontinued sale in 1997, need infobox citations.
 * Fair enough, I'll remove them. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, "the go ahead" is insufficiently encyclopedic in tone.
 * Changed to "received permission to proceed with". <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Arriving after the American launch, (Sega of America CEO Michael) Katz wasn't aware of the details surrounding the name change from Mega Drive to Genesis. Consensus states it was due to a trademark dispute. The facts are blurred, but point possibly to a US manufacturer of storage devices called Mega Drive Systems, Inc."
 * It's hard to source that something is not known, and speculation needs particularly careful sourcing. I can't read source 19 ("Retroinspection: Mega Drive"), but does it fully support the claim that "The reason for this change is not known, but it may have been due to a trademark dispute"?
 * Yes, the source itself is also speculative and cannot pin it down. Here, I'll help by contributing a quote from Retro Gamer:


 * That is exactly what I'd hoped; the source fully supports both parts of the statement, and without close paraphrasing issues. Excellent. Thanks for checking for me. – Quadell (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is "Sega Mega Anser" a typo, or is that really what it was called? And also... an online banking system? Is that really something that was available for the Mega Drive in 1988? I do wish I could see the source. Can you verify these details for me? (Also, "including" is the wrong word to use, since that doesn't sound like either a game or a peripheral to me.)
 * That's really what it's called—it's a product that was released only in Japan for use with Nagoya Bank, which is likely the reason it seems typoed in English. The source even notes, "Mega Anser (sic)", that that really was how it was spelled.  It was a full set with a cartridge, keypad, printer, and modem.  I have the issue of Retro Gamer this is noted in and can verify this is all correct.  And yes, it really was an early launch product... I'm not so sure it's 1988, the source isn't exactly specific on exactly when it was launched, but notes it in the article just after the paragraph on the Genesis' progress in Japan in its first year.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for checking. – Quadell (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I made a somewhat bold copy-edit, especially to the "launch" section, here, to improve the prose and reduce redundancy. If you disagree with any of these edits, feel free to revert and discuss.
 * I'm okay with that. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And it has been improved further. Excellent. – Quadell (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article says "A downturn in the arcade business starting in 1982 seriously hurt the company", but the source only supports the second half of the sentence (that Bally purchased Sega in 1983). I'm not familiar with a 1982 downturn. The North American video game crash of 1983 article indicates that this period was a high point for video games. The Sega article states "In 1982, Sega's revenues would eclipse $214 million... The following year, an overabundance of arcade games led to the video game crash [of 1983], causing Sega's revenues to drop to $136 million." So whence comes the claim of an 1982 downturn?
 * Can you give me a hand here? <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can take care of this with appropriate sourcing. As a note of explanation here, there were actually two different market crashes, one in coin-op and one in consumer, two markets that have different boom and bust cycles.  By the middle of 1982, sales of new arcade game cabinets came to a virtual halt due to over saturation.  This was followed by the end of the year by a decline in coin drop at the arcades.  The arcade industry bottomed out in 1984 and then began to grow again.  The home video game market suffered a market crash in 1983 as the price of new games plummeted due to over saturation to the point that publishers could no longer recoup their investment on game production.  This is the crash covered in the article you linked to above.  The home market bottomed out in 1985 and then began to grow again. Indrian (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have added a link to a New York Times article that discusses the decline of the arcade market in 1982. Indrian (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good source. I am satisfied that the arcade business had a downturn "starting in 1982", as the article says, even if early- and mid-1982 were good times for the business. – Quadell (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Related: Bally purchased Sega after the release of the SG-1000, but the article says the purchase was before the release.
 * And here too? Thank you.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I took care of this with some rewording. The gist of the article was already correct, we just got in trouble with some transitional phrasing that screwed up the chronology a bit. Indrian (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's fine now. – Quadell (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: Why is the "see also" hatnote for History of video games at the "Aggressive marketing" section, rather than the "History" supersection? – Quadell (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This would be because the "Aggressive marketing" section was originally titled "Console wars", after the fact that there was a Console wars article that talked about video game competition. A month or two ago, this article was redirected via a consensus decision at WT:VG to History of video games.  We decided we needed a new name for the section since it emphasized Sega's aggressive marketing tactics for the Genesis, and the term "console wars" is in itself a little OR and POVish unless the context of it being a quote in video game journalism is noted.  That being said, I can see where a move of that header would be reasonable now.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 17:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I think a lot of what I'm doing is smoothing over the scars of a past war. – Quadell (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article sometimes uses the serial comma (e.g. "fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts") but sometimes does not (e.g. "Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam"). Either is fine, but the article should be consistent.
 * I would prefer the former myself. I'll take a look through and see if I can touch some of that up.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The infobox seems to indicate that the console has been discontinued worldwide. (Am I reading that correctly?) But the text says "In Brazil the Mega Drive never ceased production".
 * That would be correct, that's how you're reading it. Sega discontinued the Genesis worldwide in that date, and Majesco discontinued their clone, but Tectoy continues to produce Mega Drve-based products in Brazil.  Perhaps the best fix to this might be to note below the worldwide and US Majesco dates that it is ongoing in Brazil, with Tectoy noted in parentheses.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your change isn't showing up, probably because the BR parameter isn't recognized in the vgrelease template. Any way you want to resolve it will be fine, so long as the infobox doesn't lead the reader to think all versions have been discontinued worldwide. – Quadell (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch; vgrelease doesn't have a parameter for Brazil. In response, I've submitted an edit request to have such a field added, with BR as the region code.  I can see how this might be a useful field in the future; in my research with Sega, I've found quite a few unique Brazil releases.  After the edit request is fulfilled, this should show up.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this has been resolved by SexyKick. Indrian (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What he's got has essentially done it without the template, which is fantastic, and I thank him for it. I'm going to leave the edit request, though, as it seems Brazil releases on Sega products may be more common than we might think.  For example, I found out while researching for List of Sega 32X games that Surgical Strike (video game) has a Brazil-exclusive Sega CD and Sega 32X combination release.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 23:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The direct quote in "Bill Clinton's 'Get it done' attitude" needs an unambiguous source. In fact, in my opinion, it would be better for the source's for Sonic's appearance to go before the semicolon, and the (presumably) one on his attitude should be at the end of the sentence.
 * I plugged in an unambiguous source (thank you again Retro Gamer) that cites both facts, and I dropped in the quote itself into the ref so it's there and clearly unambiguous. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 17:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So long as it's a quote, it would be better to use the actual quote of "can do", rather than "get it done". – Quadell (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused by some of the market share stats in the "Aggressive marketing" section. The article says "Even with the Genesis often outselling the Super NES at a ratio of 2:1, neither console could maintain a definitive lead in market share for several years." Two-to-one sounds like like a definitive lead in market share to me. Do you mean that neither could maintain a sustained lead for years at a time? If so, that would be a clearer wording.
 * Used suggested wording; that is what is meant. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Similar to the above, in my opinion, the final sentence of the "Sonic the Hedgehog" section would go better in the "Aggressive marketing" section instead. (That section already attributed some of the Genesis' success to Sonic, and gave a less detailed look at the market share swing of the time period.)
 * Moved the last two sentences to second paragraph of Aggressive marketing. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This sentence could really use to broken up: "To get around licensing, Accolade chose to seek an alternative way to bring their games to the Genesis by purchasing one in order to decompile the executable code of three Genesis games and use it to program their new Genesis cartridges in a way that would allow them to disable the security lockouts on the Genesis that prevented unlicensed games from being able to be played."
 * Broken into three sentences. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article flatly calls Accolade's reverse engineering methods "piracy". I don't think that's a fair NPOV term for it.
 * This is an ambiguity issue: the "piracy" referred to in this sentence is the piracy from foreign countries making bootleg copies that blanked out the trademark before the existence of the TMSS, referenced in the above paragraph. I've inserted a prepositional phrase to clarify this.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 18:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops... I guess it wasn't referenced. I wrote this section based on Sega v. Accolade, another FA that I worked extensively on.  That article makes mention of piracy issues in Southeast Asia, which the court case itself referenced as a reason for Sega's addition of the TMSS.  I hadn't realized that wasn't mentioned in this article, so I've just referenced "piracy from foreign countries".  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 18:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, that's great. – Quadell (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article says "Ratings ranged from the family friendly GA rating to the adults-only ratings of MA-13, and MA-17." I'm not sure MA-13 can be described as an adults-only rating. I would just say "to the adults-only rating of MA-17", (though then you might want to introduce the MA-13 rating somehow so that the next sentence makes sense). Related, I'm not sure "relatively low MA-13 rating" conveys the fact that it's non-restrictive.
 * Noted MA-13 as a "more mature" rating, and moved the adults-only to MA-17. The image box for MA-13 even says "Mature Audiences" on it.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The direct quote "unwieldy and inaccurate" needs a clear source.
 * I just removed this and changed "unreliability" to "inaccuracy". To say consumers dismissed it with a direct quote just seems off-kilter.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, that's a great way to neatly resolve the issue. – Quadell (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the "Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade" section goes into a bit more detail than necessary. It's an important part of the history of the Genesis, and I wouldn't cut it in half or anything... but some of the specifics (the date of the written opinion vs. the ruling, the various injunctions, terms of the settlement, etc.) could be trimmed, and I think it would improve the flow of the article as a whole.
 * I've done a little trimming here, but I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not it needs a little more. On a side note, it's tasks like this that make me very much like the VisualEditor, where it's more convenient for proofreading and copyediting prose.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 01:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's great now. (I may have to try VisualEditor after all.) – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You have some overlinking issues. (Altered Beast, Super Nintendo, Sega CD, etc.) There's a tool to detect those, if you have it; otherwise I can list them for you. Also, you usually don't need to link the names of countries: United Kingdom, Kuwait, etc.
 * I can't seem to find this tool; do you have a link to it? I'd be glad to solve the over linking if I could find the tool.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The tool is at User:Ucucha/duplinks. If you need help installing or using it, feel free to ask me on my user talk page. – Quadell (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I got it. That's quite a useful tool; I'll have to make sure to make use of it in future article writing.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 01:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: Why is the Power Base Converter, which allows the Genesis to play older Master System games, a "peripheral" described in the "Peripherals" section... while the Sega CD, which allows the Genesis to play newer games, an "add-on" listed in the "Add-ons" section?
 * Video game media tends to refer to these two as "add-ons" specifically, but leaves out the Power Base Converter, which is essentially a pass-through for Master System cartridges (the Genesis itself is already backwards compatible in its hardware; the Power Base Converter is just a slot adapter for the differently shaped cartridges to allow it to use such functionality.) The Sega CD and Sega 32X, however, add functionalities such as faster processor chips and more storage capability, and in addition are quite a bit more notable, seeing as how each warrants their own article (and coincidentally both Sega CD and Sega 32X are GA-class articles.
 * Now, here's where I play devil's advocate - "Peripheral" and "add-on" are essentially the same thing. The terminology is out of video game media, but they're synonyms.  If recommended, I would not have a problem with moving the Sega CD and 32X sections into the Peripherals area, though I'd recommend they keep their subsections.  However, it's my personal thought they're quite distinctly different from "peripherals" for the system.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 01:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the sources are fairly consistent in referring to one as a peripheral and the others as add-ons, that's fine. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "The same was true of the Pioneer LaserActive, which was also an add-on..." I don't think the LaserActive was an add-on. The sentence should be reworded for clarity and accuracy.
 * SexyKick got this one. It's kind of humorous, because it's actually the opposite way around.  The LaserActive requires an add-on known as the Mega-LD pack to play Genesis and Sega CD games.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 01:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the "Later new releases" section is saying that the versions of FIFA 2008, Need for Speed Pro Street, The Sims 2, and Sim City for the Mega Drive Guitar Idol were originally made as cellphone games. If that's true, then no change is needed. But if you meant that the MDGI included those named games, plus others derived from celphone games, then it should be reworded.
 * I checked the source with Google Translate (it's in Portuguese, since it's from Tectoy's site). Nothing in the source actually says these games came from cellphone games, so I've removed this statement.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A "See also" section should not include links which are already linked in the article body. All of these are, so the entire section is not needed. (The portal links would have to go in a different section.)
 * Removed, moved portal links to References. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Images: The non-free images are all used appropriately, with all required information present. (Although File:Megadrive logo.png and File:GenesisLogo.png could be cleaned up a bit, with rationale templates used a little better.) Nearly all the free images are legitimate, complete, and appropriate. (Evan-Amos is the man, by the way.) But I'm very concerned about File:Xeye.JPG; it looks like the original uploader is saying he got the image off eBay, though the link is now dead. Could it be replaced with a different third-party-model image? Also, this is minor stuff, but a description is needed for File:Console-wondermega.jpg, and it would be better to include an English description and categories to File:Teradrive-2007-05-19-front.jpg.
 * Updated the templates for the two logos, and added a description for the Wondermega. Also, I replaced the X'Eye image with one for the Amstrad Mega PC, which is claimed to be in the public domain and the uploader says he took the image himself.   Also, yes, Evan-Amos is the man, definitely.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Be very careful about tenses in this article. Any action in the past should use the past tense (e.g. "Sega advertised to a more adult audience" or "The Genesis library was initially modest"), but for descriptions of things that still exist, the present tense should be used. This article does that correctly in some places (e.g. "The console also includes a Zilog Z80 sub-processor"), but I've had to change other parts to use the present tense (e.g. "the Sega Genesis also supports two add-ons"), and there are many other places where the present tense should be used instead of the past (e.g. "a 32-bit peripheral which utilized ROM cartridges", "but was incompatible with some games", "It also provided battery-backed storage RAM", "the Sega Mega Mouse featured three buttons", etc.) Someone will need to make sure the present tense is used when it's appropriate throughout the article. Be careful though; don't change every past tense phrasing into the present tense. For instance, consider "Virtua Racing, the only game released with this chip, ran at a significantly higher and more stable frame rate than similar games on the SNES." It still does run at a higher and more stable frame rate, but in the context of the paragraph, the important point was that it ran better back then. Or consider "this add-on unit also upgraded the graphics and sound capabilities". The add-on still exists, but it "upgraded" the capabilities at the time. It will take a lot of care, but it's important to get the tenses right throughout the article.
 * Case study: Consider this sentence. "This version removed the headphone jack in the front, changed the A/V-Out connector to a smaller version that supports stereo sound, and provided a simpler, less expensive mainboard that required less power." It's true that it only removed and changed at the time of its release, but it still provides a mainboard that requires less. Because it's bad style to mix tenses in a list, I reworded the entire sentence with this edit. I'm afraid that sort of change will be necessary in many places. – Quadell (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see that SexyKick's been working on this one. I'll have to spend some time at it too, but it's a very busy season for me at work, and I'm finding free time quite scarce.
 * Let me know when you think this is done, and I'll check it over. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I took some time and worked through this tonight. I was surprised to find there was so much of this in "Game library" and "Variations", but some in other areas, too.  I went through with a fine-toothed comb and I think this is all resolved.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 03:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a couple you missed, but it's hard to believe there are many more lurking in there. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. After looking over it again, I believe this issue to be resolved. – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I found a few issues with the lead, as listed above, since resolved, I have to respectfully disagree with Indopug on nearly all the points he raises. I see nothing wrong with the description of "console war", nor with the description of the hardware in the lead, nor with the use of the phrase "price point" later in the article. I don't think it would be appropriate to use "the West" in place of "North America and in Europe" for purposes of modern console sales information, and I don't think the article is missing subjective descriptions of how the "gaming experience" was different. It seems to me that only actionable opportunities for legitimate improvement should be considered.
 * Thank you for your honest feedback. Make sure to let us know what we can do to gain support for this to be an FA; the devoted team behind this article can make it happen.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources: I haven't done a thorough source formatting inspection, but the ones I've looked at have had no problems. The few spotchecks I did showed the material fully supported without plagiarism.
 * Thank you. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Images: The non-free images are all used appropriately, with all required information present. All the free images are legitimate, complete, and appropriate. Captions are fine.

Support. This article is thorough, well-sourced, and well-written. It fulfills all are GA criteria, and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire
A few quibbles. ""No one here agrees with anything you've said. But I hired you to make the decisions for Europe and the Americas, so go ahead and do it.""
 * The "Aggressive Marketing" section seems to be almost all concerned with the North American market. Maybe rename it as such so that it's clear?  (I assume that sources for other markets are hard to find.)
 * Politely, I disagree with this, because it's not entirely true. It seems that way, because at the time Sega of America was also over decisions in Europe too—Sega of Europe would not be established until 1991.  Tom Kalinske's decisions at Sega of America were certainly targeted for the American audience, but also had impacts over Europe because of this.  A quick quote to kind of back this, from Sega CEO Hayao Nakayama to Tom Kalinske after his suggestion to reduce the price of the Genesis per his razor-and-blades model and pack in Sonic the Hedgehog:

- Hayao Nakayama


 * This can be found in Retro Gamer, just to cite where I've got this from. I'd be glad to accept it, but I worry that explicitly calling it North American is going to reintroduce the WP:WORLDVIEW issues that plagued this article for years and years.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point, but I'd cross that bridge when you come to it - if more European material can be found, I agree that shuffling around the name might be wise. As is, the new section title is more descriptive. SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Nintendo's share of the 16-bit machine business dipping down from 60% at the end of 1992 to 37% at the end of 1993" - Please clarify what Business Week meant with "16-bit machine business" in the text. Is this percentage of console sales per year?  Percentage of dollar sales of console sales per year?  Percentage of hardware sales?  Percentage of hardware & approved software combined?  And, if the section is not renamed, it might be worth mentioning "American market" again here.
 * Removed - Even Business Week isn't too clear on what they mean by that. I've used the Retro Gamer article to rephrase this from the perspective of Sega, anyway, as the article is about their console and their product.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that should be removed. That change breaks the flow of the sentence / paragraph, and loses the focus of showing how things were progressively through sources of the time. We can clarify because Business Week cites Goldman Sachs, which means it was tracking dollar share of the 16-bit machines business. I also don't think we're hurting worldview by renaming a section, that doesn't change the content of the article itself. We cover Japan, and then Europe right before this section...at least, to the extent of the sources we have.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 05:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Sega accounting for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales during 1994" - Thanks for sticking it in the footnote, but maybe move up from the footnote to here that "Sega claimed Sega accounted for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales?" Sega talking about its own market share is definitely worth calling out explicitly!
 * Done - Looks like someone has changed "accounting" to "claiming", which I think fixes this. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "the Super NES to win a handful of the waning years of the 16-bit generation" - This is a weird metric. "Number of years won" isn't really relevant, and considering that the Genesis was released 2 years prior to the SNES, I wouldn't be shocked if the SNES won all of the "waning years" rather than "a handful" of them (how many would that be, anyway?!  If we're talking 1994-1996, is a handful 1 out of 3?).  I'm not sure exactly what the sources say here so it's hard for me to suggest a rephrase, but if you want to keep the years thing in, just list out the years that the SNES "won" (e.g. "Super Nintendo outsold the Genesis from year X-year Y"), and, more interestingly, list the total sales of hardware, which is what really matters in a sense.  Possibly split it out by market; if a total Genesis sales in NAmerica figure can be had, that'd be useful to add.  According to the SNES article, the SNES outsold the Genesis by 10 million units worldwide, but you'd never figure that out from this section, which seems to indicate the Genesis "won" the console wars.  I assume that better Japanese SNES sales is what tipped the balance, since this article seems to indicate the Genesis did "win" the North American market?  Regardless, it'd be good to add to the article.
 * It's 1995 (2.7 to 2.1) 1996 (1.4 to 1.1) and 1997 (1 to 0.4) that the SNES won actually. That makes for a total of only 1.5 million units in difference. The Genesis 3 would go on to sell better than the Super NES in 1998. And, yes the Japanese sales are drastically different, 17.17 million to 3.58 million, as far as the sources of numbers available anyway.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 21:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be a bad idea; anyone have a breakdown of SNES numbers? <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "This success led to Sega overtaking Nintendo in January 1992 with control of 65% of the 16-bit console market, making it the first time Nintendo was not the console leader since December 1985." Wait, what?  Didn't an earlier reference claim that Nintendo had 60% of the sales in 1992, and it wasn't until 1993 the Genesis surged?  These sources don't add up.  Also, wouldn't Sega have had 100% of the 16-bit market in 1989 and 1990, since the SNES wasn't out yet?!  What's this "overtaking" comment for the 16-bit market, then?  As for "Nintendo not being the console leader," well, what exactly does console leader mean?  I would guess something like "hardware + software sales per year" in that Genesis was outselling the Nintendo + Super Nintendo, but please clarify if possible.
 * 1992 is the year the Genesis really surged. With an increase from 1.6 million sales in 1991, to 4.5 million in 1992 (Super Nintendo would only have sold 4 million by the end of 1992 http://books.google.com/books?id=b2PuAAAAMAAJ&q=super+nes+), to a peak of 5.5 million in 1993, and with 4 million in 1994 (taking in 55% of the 16-bit machine sales), they didn't lose a Christmas season sales in the 16-bit market until 1995.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. Can these figures be used instead in the article? SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Integrated.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Retro Gamer also states that Sega had 55% of the market in 1992, in the Retroinspection: Mega Drive article. Just to back this up a little bit.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done - Removing Business Week earlier corrects this inconsistency. I think their reference to 16-bit business is different, essentially comparing apples to oranges in this case.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Nintendo took in 42 percent of the video game market dollar share despite a continued reliance on the SNES" - "despite?" Despite what?  The Super Nintendo & Game Boy were Nintendo's big products in 1995, of course it'd be them.  I think this sentence is trying to hint that the Nintendo 64 hadn't been released yet, but say so directly if so.  And it's not clear at all that this kind of logic is correct - the PS2 outsold the PS3 for a decent length after the launch of the PS3, so the idea that it's shocking the older-gen system could beat a newer-gen system seems wrong anyway.  Maybe something like "42 percent of the video game market dollar share off the continuing strength of the SNES and Game Boy?"
 * That is how the sources explain it, I think the statement can stand, but some information about how Sony's Playstation was out, and how the Nintendo 64 was being delayed, and that Nintendo decided to focus on their 16-bit system unlike Sega should be added.
 * Done - I've straightened this out to explain that Nintendo had not released a 32-bit console, and added a little support for reasons behind Nintendo's success over Sega in 1995-1997, including the Game Boy's success over the Sega Nomad in that era. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Notably compared to its competition as well, Sega advertised to a more adult audience by hosting more mature games, including the uncensored version of Mortal Kombat." Mortal Kombat counts as a "mature" game? :p  I'm pretty sure the marketing there was still aimed at kids, just their rebellious blood-everywhere-is-awesome side, while the SNES was trying to make sure parents bought that system by being kid-safe.  So Sega was advertising to kids, Nintendo was actually the one aiming at the adult-holding-pursestrings audience.  The way I'd suggest phrasing this is something like "Sega, unlike Nintendo, did not advertise itself to parents as a "family-friendly" system, and included in its library games such as an uncensored version of Mortal Kombat."  The reference for the paragraph, Retro Gamer, is offline so I don't know how loyal this is to what was written there, mind.
 * I disagree with this entirely. The emphasis on games like Joe Montana Football; something kids have no interest in playing, should be clear. And how doesn't Mortal Kombat count as a mature game? Purely though, we are reflecting what the sources say with the statement as it is.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the source truly says that Sega marketed to a more adult audience, that is fine, of course, as already noted. I'm rather surprised and personally would disagree with the source - my understanding is that the battlefield of the 16-bit era was still largely fought among kids of all ages, and games were not particularly marketed to adults at all for either side. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is a terminology problem here. "More adult" and "more mature" are relative terms and not meant to reflect actual adults.  These terms are meant to indicate that Sega was expanding beyond Nintendo's 6-12 demographic to target adolescents.  Sony was the first company to really target the twenty-something market heavily with the PlayStation.  The wording may need to be tweaked to make this clearer. Indrian (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Retro Gamer supports the mature term. I'll see if I can tweak it some, though, if need be; Retro Gamer supports that Sega marketed it to adolescents, but doesn't really mention Mortal Kombat as part of that.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I left "mature" in, but changed it from "more adult" to "older" per Indrian's suspicions that this really means "older kids" rather than actual adults. Sound fair? SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The 32X section doesn't quite seem to communicate the same degree of failure that the main Sega 32X article does. When I read it, I assumed that the 1 million orders were eventually filled once supply caught up, but according to the article, the largest estimate for total shipped was 660,000?  This makes the initial 1 million number misleading and almost trivia (if it's even right?) - I'd keep that for the spinoff article and just say "Sega shipped 660,000 by March 1995 despite supply hiccups" or the like.  As for the final sentence, every console eventually gets discounted to low prices, and that sentence does not mention any time frame for the discounts (e.g. it doesn't say "and it was selling at 20 dollars X months after launch, an unusually short time), so it's not too interesting.  I'd cut that sentence and instead include different facts - the precise date of the Saturn launch, only hinted at currently (only 6 months later, apparently!), that only ~40 games were ever released for it, and (optional) that video game journalists have considered the 32X as one of Sega's greatest mistakes using the ref's from the "Reception" section in the 32X article. SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the 32X section of *this* article should focus more on what the 32X did for the Genesis, and less on its failure. It was published at the time that pre orders hit 1 million. That communicates how impactful the add on was at its launch. So I partially agree, and partially disagree. The 32X certainly helped move Genesis consoles in 1994, because people felt it was a console that would be around for a long time, and would grow. We have to remember that initial public reaction to the 32X was extremely positive...certainly we could use the surprise early Saturn launch date to explain why interest in the 32X faded so quickly and why there would only wind up being 40 games published for the system. Certainly more 32X games would have come out if the Saturn had launched 12 months later, instead of 6 months later, like originally was thought.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I definitely think that mentioning explicitly the length of time to the Saturn's release would help, at least. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being too blunt here, is this feedback intended to be biased toward Nintendo? It seems peculiar to me that nearly every bit of it seems to be about downplaying the Genesis and 32X and up playing Nintendo's products such as the SNES. I appreciate your bringing up of a few consistency issues—sources of things such as sales figures tend to be a little squirrely even in established reliable sources and should be fixed, yes—and suggestions to include things such as the timing of the Saturn's release, but some of this is just ridiculous. The comment about Mortal Kombat being an example of Sega advertising to kids is a fringe theory if you can't back it up. I don't necessarily mind the addition of a final SNES figure, as I did something similar for Sega Game Gear, but some of the semantics being brought up, like how the section about the Sega 32X doesn't play up the add-on's failure like the article Sega 32X (which I wrote, by the way) does, are just getting tickytack. I'm trying my best to assume good faith here, but plain and simple, so much of this seems to be pointed that I think a lot of this goes beyond just WP:NPOV issue correction. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 03:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I can agree to that. It was also commented on by other editors when we had the SNES sales figures in there that this article is about the Genesis, and should not overly focus on the Super NES. (something we were already asked to tone down during this FACR) The article does already say that the Mega Drive remained a distant third in Japan...and lists their 3.58 million figure elsewhere in the article. Since wikipedia is not a directory (among other reasons) there is not a comprehensive sales comparison chart made in the article.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * SexyKick: I agree that the article shouldn't get lost with covering the console wars in too much detail, but if the article is going to make direct comparisons between the two consoles, then the sales - and what sales - suddenly become relevant. The SNES figures are already in the article, just implicitly and murkily at the moment.  As for the Genesis's worldwide sales, I'd actually missed the line outside the lede that discussed the Genesis's poor performance in Japan.  I'm not sure there's a good way around that - North America was clearly the Genesis's most important market, so it makes sense that it should get considerably more written about it in the article than the worldwide market, but it currently takes up so much space comparatively that it's easy to bury the issues in Japan.  Did any of the sources actually attempt to explain why the Genesis did poorly in Japan?  It could potentially be worth another sentence, at least.  I'm curious. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that we have a source that explicitly discusses this issue, as coverage of the Japanese market in English-language sources during that period is really spotty. In general terms, the Japanese market does not often support healthy competition because it is a communal society, so once one console breaks out as a major hit, everybody goes with the crowd.  By the time the Genesis was released, Nintendo was such a dominant brand that Sega could not really penetrate that market.  The PC Engine had some initial success, but that was due to its excellent shooter ports --particularly R-Type -- which could not run well on the Famicom and were unavailable on the Genesis.  Once Nintendo had a 16-bit system on the market, however, even the PC Engine sank pretty quickly.  Sega only managed to break through the Nintendo bias with the Saturn (ironically a failure in the U.S. and Europe, the exact opposite of the Genesis situation) because Virtua Fighter was an incredibly big deal in Japan.  I have seen sources describe the Japanese "mob mentality" when it comes to buying consoles generally, but I am not sure I have seen anything regarding the Genesis specifically. Indrian (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red, I know that this article has been forced to endure a lot over the years, which can make a guy wary, but I did not sense a Nintendo bias in these comments at all. While I also disagree with the Mortal Kombat comment, the rest appears to come from honest confusion as to the facts after the commentor read the article.  I think clarifying some of the market share info is a good idea. Indrian (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OTOH, when I saw that SexyKick was reworking the sections, I was immediately concerned about a pro-Sega bias. Looking, I find he added "Nintendo would go to great lengths to control impressions of the market", while the source cited says both companies did so. And given that source, should we be citing as fact the other sources in that section that are basically "Sega said Sega had X% market share"? Anomie⚔ 12:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Before you made this comment, I had changed the line for 1994 to say that Sega claimed its market % that year. That's the only number we have that's like that. I am a little confused about your assertion that the source cited says both companies did so. It says "Major video games companies go to great lengths........" yes, but the first example is Super Nintendo (cited), and then they say it happened again in the 32-bit era, citing Sony as the example, not Sega. Those are the only two examples given.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand now. The earlier page. I can change the wording to more accurately reflect that.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 14:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * RedPhoenix: No, the feedback was not intended to turn the article into a yay-Nintendo piece, and was offered in good faith. My largest concern by far is that some of the figures on the console war given are not clear what they mean, and phrased in a fashion that is a tad too magazine-articley.  I'm not saying we should have a dry recitation of facts, of course, but if this article can give something more precise, it'd help immensely.  (Note: Ninja'd by SexyKick.  Their changes have helped some of the article already, I believe, like mentioning the years explicitly.)  If you're worried about my comments being too "pro-Nintendo", well, I suspect that a clearer formulation of the facts will actually reflect favorably on the Genesis in some matters.  To use an example mentioned above, the fact the article uses the odd "years won" metric, and isn't even clear which years were "won", makes the Genesis figures sketchier.  There's a big difference between "moved 5 million units vs. 4.5 million" and "moved 3 million vs. 500K" and it's not clear what happened, currently.  In the same way, what does "the 16-bit machine business" mean?  Saying what it actually implies will likely be more "impressive" for the Genesis than the current mystery.  I don't consider such concerns "ridiculous."
 * That said... I think you're reading something into my Mortal Kombat statement that wasn't there, and regardless, it was something that got both a smiley and a "please ignore if the sources disagree", so uh.  Answering questions like these is supposed to be the entire point of a FAC - as SexyKick has done, in a way that directly answered my concerns that it wasn't in the source.  What I do believe, which I suppose is what you're complaining about in my POV, is there are a few areas where, in my opinion, the article reads as a little too enthusiastically "pro-Genesis," and I believe that slant should be adjusted to be neutral.  The "Nintendo did well despite a reliance on the Super NES" sends the message that the SNES was inferior and it was surprising it sold okay.  In fact, if an outside observer knew nothing about the consoles aside from the release date, it'd make perfect sense that in 1995 a console released in 1991 would outsell a console released in 1989, assuming both had a similar pattern of growth followed by a trailing off of sales, since it's 4 years later for one and 6 years later for the other.  Fixing this should not be hard, and I am not calling for a radical revision of the article. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good point that there's nothing that really states that the Super NES was going against the PSX and the Sega Saturn that year, and that's why it was a surprise that the Super NES had done so well. Not being of a pro-Genesis thing. I will look at that in a minute.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 07:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I addressed everything. I'm tired now.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 07:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I've seemed blunt; it's been a very bad week for me. As it pertains to Wikipedia itself, I am starting to wonder now if six years, four GA nominations, at least two complete rewrites, a GA delisting, years of a brutal naming debate, and this FAC are starting to make me numb to what the text actually says. Let me just say I'll be glad when this FAC is over. Having read all of the following comments from my phone at work, I feel more like things have been put into perspective for me. It's actually a similar approach to what I took with Sega Game Gear and its competition with the Game Boy. In the next couple of days I'll see if I can use that to do some touch up work; my thanks to Indrian and SexyKick for your continued help. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The touch-up work looks good to me. Most of my concerns are met, thanks for the revisions.  I made a few adjustments in this edit, please feel free to change if you disagree.  One thought, though...  Unlike Quadell, I actually disagree with removing the "See also" section.  Yes, yes, I know there's the suggestion about "don't link articles already linked in the article," but what that guideline is really touching on is avoiding incredibly bloated See also sections.  Restoring the see also would allow the References sections more room due to not having the portal sidebar "alley" and it was short, succinct, and relevant.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't, so just chipping in my 2 cents, it's ultimately fine either way.  Support. SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the See Also section, I didn't like moving the Sega CD Games and Sega 32X games lists up to their sections, hopefully Quadell will comment and we can move forward with that. I also liked your edit, the "amazing original music" was the sources wording, and I was having trouble thinking of a creative alternative wording. You nailed it. ^^--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think "See also" sections should be reduced or eliminated in 90% of cases—I think they're overused, and I have an admitted bias against them. But I would not oppose the article just because it has a "See also" section, so long as you're selective about what is included. – Quadell (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Though the SNES and PC-Engine are explicitly listed in the article, perhaps this See also can include some other 4th-generation competitors with the Genesis that weren't worth mentioning in the article, such as Neo Geo (console), Philips CD-i, etc. That would make sense.  <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix  <font color="#FFA500">build the future...<font color="#FFDD22">remember the past... 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also think Atari Jaguar at that point, since the Sega Genesis and Super NES were its first competition, and they wiped the floor with it...--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 23:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Support and Random Source Check - Source formatting in the article seems consistent, and not plagiarized. I had been involved in this article through contributing a picture no longer used in the article, as well as in the naming debates. I have done a random source check. Sources 7,8, and 9 all reflect the information included in the article. Source 23 accurately reflects the information in the article. Source 27 and 28 have exact quotes cited that reflect the information in the article. Source 39 and 40 referring to Blast Processing could maybe be worded more accurately in the article to reflect the sources, but maybe it's worded the way it is to avoid plagiarism? Source 95 certainly describes the inaccuracy players had to deal with when using the Sega Activator. Source 103, used for five instances of text in the article, accurately reflects the information at those points. Source 107 and 108 check out as well. Source 120 calling the Genesis 6 button the best controller ever, I certainly agree with, and is accurately quoted. So, by and large, no problems. Just that one question on sources 39/40, but not enough issues that I think it would prevent FA status.--BeastSystem (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support and the source check. I'm sure that between the three of us (nominating editors) that we'll be able to continue to improve for a long time to come.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 09:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - The article is well written, unbiased and has a good international perspective to it. It covers most noteworthy areas of the console, from its cradle to how it's used to this very day. Technical sections aren't too hard to understand. I say it deserves to be featured. --Zebbe (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay. Thank you for your support. I know this article has been through a bit of a roller coaster ride over the years. There are two new books coming out soon that will have things like older controller designs that Sega didn't go with, and lots of other stuff.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 09:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Did I miss the image review? Graham Colm (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quadell went over the free images under "images:", there was a more thorough image review in the very tough GA review we had before bringing the article here.--<font color="#00BFFF ">Sexy <font color="#347235">Kick 16:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Red Phoenix. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)