Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega Saturn/archive2


 * 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) 04:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Sega Saturn

 * Nominator(s): TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Sega Saturn, a video game console that has been the object of intense Internet speculation and rumors, yet which I believe Wikipedia covers as accurately and impartially as the available reliable sources allow. Improvements have been made since the previous FAC, which included a thorough source review, and I will add a few more tweaks in a moment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix  let's talk...:

, I'm so glad you've decided to bring this back to FAC. I am declaring my intention to review this article and will be doing so in the next few days. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any progress, ?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to proceed as soon as I can. Real life is kicking my tail right now; hopefully it won't be too long until I can devote some time to this.  I do really want to give this a review.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One quick one here to start: All of your images look good and properly handled except for File:Sega Saturn with Netlink inside.jpg. Take a look at your Pluto source; it's exactly the same image but zoomed out.  I've also seen it in IGN as well, and as a result I really don't think it's actually a GNU from the uploader; it's more likely it was ripped off from the internet and is actually a copyright violation.  The uploader even said on the page that it was an image he had on his computer and doesn't provide a decent source.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Make sure to use the WayBack Machine to archive Allgame links; the site is going down today. I know I'll end up with a lot of articles I'll have to do this with myself.
 * Fourth paragraph of Technical specifications seems a little small and isolated in the middle of nowhere. If it can't be expanded, can it be combined?

We'll start there; hopefully during this busy season I can find time to go through this more in depth. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero
As a Sonic fan I've learned to accept projects not quite being finished before their deadlines, but I don't want this to experience the same fate like last time. I thought it looked great before, but a further look can't hurt... and I am too tired to give one now. Be back in short order. Tezero (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC) "Development of the Saturn began in 1992, the same year Sega's groundbreaking 3D Model 1 arcade hardware debuted. The system adopted parallel processors before the end of 1993, and was designed around a new CPU specially commissioned by Sega from Japanese electronics company Hitachi. When Sega learned the full capabilities of the forthcoming Sony PlayStation console in early 1994, the company responded by incorporating an additional video display processor into the Saturn's design. Successful on launch in Japan due to the popularity of a port of the arcade game Virtua Fighter, the system debuted in the United States in a surprise launch four months before its scheduled release date, but failed to sell in large numbers. After the launch, Sega's upper management structure changed with the departures of chairman David Rosen and Sega of Japan CEO Hayao Nakayama from their roles in the American division, and Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske from the company altogether. This led to the additions of Shoichiro Irimajiri and Bernie Stolar to Sega of America, who guided the Saturn to its discontinuation in 1998 in North America, three years after its release. Although the system is remembered for several well-regarded games, including Nights into Dreams..., the Panzer Dragoon series, and the Virtua Fighter series, the Saturn's complex system architecture resulted in the console receiving limited third-party support, which inhibited commercial success. The failure of Sega's development teams to finish and release a game in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, known in development as Sonic X-treme, has also been attributed as a factor in the console's poor performance." Read everything until the Sonic X-treme section. Tezero (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I know the page is on the large side already, but I'd prefer the second paragraph of the intro to be cut down. As a rule of thumb, if an article's intro, including only the actual text, doesn't fit entirely on my laptop screen, I consider it to be too long. In this case, I'd trim this paragraph something like so, only keeping the bold information and wording, and possibly also trim a little of the first and third:
 * "Prior to development of the Saturn, the Sega Genesis was Sega's entry into the fourth generation of video game consoles. It was released in Japan as the Mega Drive in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe as the Mega Drive in 1990." - Awkward organization. I'd simply say that the Genesis, known in Europe and Japan as the Mega Drive, was...
 * Development looks fine from a skim, but the technical aspects of consoles and computers bore me to tears so I couldn't give it more than that.
 * "1:1 ratio" - using Arabic numerals seems a little informal
 * "Sony subsequently unveiled the retail price for the PlayStation, with speaker Steve Race taking the stage, saying "$299", and walking away to applause" - the "with [pres-prog.-verb]" form is awkward; try "Sony subsequently ... PlayStation: speaker Steve Race took the stage, ..."
 * "at Sony Computer Entertainment of America" - why hasn't SCA been linked or mentioned earlier, given how much the PS1's already been talked about?
 * "in "a series of outlandish TV commercials" starting in 1997" - why quote this? The wording doesn't seem important; we don't even know whom it's from.
 * "including Virtua Fighter RPG" - First of all, the link should be to Role-playing video game. Second, introduce it like the person hasn't heard of it before, more like "including a role-playing game in the Virtua Fighter series".
 * I will incorporate every one of your changes, except your proposed lead. I appreciate a short lead, as seen in Dreamcast, and may try to trim this one even more than I already have. However, I believe that dropping off mid-sentence after "visual display processor", removing the names of the Sega executives, and compounding the skewed weight towards the unreleased Sonic X-Treme by removing well-regarded games that were actually released would be a mistake.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , have you incorporated my changes yet? I haven't checked. Tezero (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the 18th.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry! Here, I'm waiting for a massive file to render so I'll give you more. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "and by the time the Saturn was discontinued had sold 2 million consoles in the region" - Um... how should I parse this? Sega sold 2 million or the Saturn had? Or the PlayStation had?
 * "Lack of distribution" - ???
 * "installed base" - I know what you mean, but that's a confusing choice of wording.
 * "The decision to abandon the Saturn effectively left the Western market without Sega games for over a year" - Effectively? How many were released? Could you name a few that were?
 * Why is "Sega Pluto" bolded?

I'll look at the rest later. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sega sold 2 million Saturn units. Is "Sega announced its final games for the North American market on March 14, 1998, and by the time the system was discontinued had sold 2 million Saturn units in the region, compared to 10.75 million PlayStation consoles sold by Sony at that time" any more clear?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You may check the source on Google Scholar, but it doesn't provide much additional detail. As discussed in the "Launch" section, only four retailers carried the Saturn during its surprise launch, and this prompted others to drop Sega from their lineup. Whether or not the author is overstating the significance of this problem is difficult to assess, because few sources discuss it, but anecdotally it does seem the PlayStation and N64 were easier to find in the U.S. at least. In addition, Sega themselves (or Sega of America) infamously released Saturn games from Burning Rangers to Panzer Dragoon Saga in extremely limited quantities in their rush to make way for the Dreamcast (or because they thought such games could appeal to no more than a small, niche group of Westerners). On an unrelated note, this is also something that should have been considered for the Sega Genesis article, as Sega's aggressive advertising was largely an attempt to break Nintendo's "monopoly" by raising enough of a stink to get retailers like Wal-Mart to carry the Genesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking for detail, only for clarification about the vague wording. You might change this to something more specific about lack of stores carrying it, since "lack of distribution" could imply, among other things, that plenty of stores carried Saturns but didn't have many units in stock at any given time, or that not a lot of them got sold-through. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the latter interpretation is tenable, but I have revised the sentence: "Lack of distribution has been cited as a significant factor contributing to the Saturn's limited installation base, as the system's surprise launch damaged Sega's reputation with key retailers." In the hope that this may aid the reader, I have also added a little more detail to "Launch" and provided a quote from the source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What should I change it to?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Player base? Owner base? Installation base? Either of the first two with "pool" instead of "base"? I'm not picky. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to "installation base".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for the Saturn dried up by early- to mid-1998. There was The House of the Dead (March 1998), Panzer Dragoon Saga (April 1998), Shining Force 3 and Burning Rangers (May 1998), and not a whole lot else. Offhand, I can't think of any first-party Saturn games from 1999 leading up to the Dreamcast's September 9th launch. The language used echoes the source exactly, so I don't see what the issue is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not chained to the language used in any particular source - if we were, plagiarism wouldn't be an issue. You might want to include a few of those for context. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember, in the preceding paragraph the reader has already learned that "Sega announced its final games for the North American market on March 14, 1998". According to the source, those games were The House of the Dead, Shining Force III, and Burning Rangers. They were not the final first-party Saturn games (parts 2 and 3 of Shining Force III, for example, were released in the following months in Japan), and this announcement does not sync up precisely with IGN's vague reference to "the Western market", because the Saturn lasted somewhat longer in Europe. However, if the reader already knows that the final North American games were announced in March 1998 and that the Dreamcast would not reach the West until late 1999, I'm not sure further explanation is required. Launch games, last games, ect., are not necessarily notable on their own terms (if they are, they might be better covered in "Game library"); and it's not our job to question a reliable source for using terms like "Western market" or "effectively", unless we can prove they are mistaken.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't be sure, but there may have been a stub article about the Pluto, which would have been deleted. At the moment, there is an anchor ensuring that any search for "Sega Pluto" leads to the brief mention here, hence the bolding. I unbolded for now, as it may put unnecessary emphasis on the alleged prototype.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's it! I'm trusting that the sourcing hasn't changed much, so I won't be doing a source review or spotchecks. Tezero (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "a port of Sonic 3D Blast" - might be worth saying that it was an enhanced port, with better graphics, different music, and new special stages
 * Also, Sonic 3D Blast has an article, and Sonic Jam at least has a section in a larger article. Bug! should also be linked.
 * "failed to catch on with audiences in the way Sonic had" - ambiguous: the Sonic series as a whole, X-treme from what the public knew of it, Sonic R, 3D Blast, or Jam?
 * "and retrospective coverage of the game has been less positive" - a brief explanation of why (even just an extra clause caboosed on) would be nice
 * "Some of the games that made the Saturn popular in Japan, such as Grandia[18] and the Sakura Wars series" - Put a comma after "series", and consider mentioning that these were RPGs, not 3D platformers.
 * "At the time of its release, Famicom Tsūshin scored the Saturn console 24 out of 40 possible points, higher than the PlayStation's 19 out of 40" - Any fuller review?
 * The first paragraph of Reception and legacy is seeded throughout with the word "score" and variations thereof; I suggest rewording a few.
 * Also, I have no idea how well the Saturn stacked up in review scores compared to the N64 and very little compared to the PS1.
 * Did any of these so effusive critics explain what was so gilded about the Saturn's library?
 * I'd prefer the categories to be alphabetized, but not a big deal.
 * I'm afraid I don't have access to more period-specific system reviews from the gaming press, certainly not Famitsu (which has been there since this article included only about three dozen citations), but I have done my best to address most of your concerns. BTW, if you want a good contemporary review of Bug!, try this blog. I distinctly recall trying to track down a critique of comparable quality in reliable sources, to no avail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh. Seems like no matter whether a reviewer does or doesn't let a game's "classic" age blind them when reviewing it, I'm unsatisfied. Ah, whatever, that's too bad that more detailed reviews weren't available. I can support this article's candidacy now, at any rate; nice work. Tezero (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from hahnchen

 * Comment - Too much weight is placed upon the cancellation of Sonic X-Treme, a title's whose importance is mostly justified by wishful conjecture. You spend more time on Sonic X-Treme than the entirety of the Saturn game library. - hahnch e n 17:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Using File:NiGHTs_into_Dreams_Spring_Valley.jpg - a screenshot of the HD remake of Nights, even if labelled, is misleading. - hahnch e n 18:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll change the screenshot; I have a better one in mind. While you raise a valid point about X-Treme, I trimmed over 2,000 characters from that section around the time of the GA Review (and hid Naka's relief over the cancellation, one of the best parts of the story, in a citation), but was instructed to add the fourth paragraph during the previous FAC. I can look into trimming it, and no-one is more skeptical about the way X-Treme was shaping up than me, but it is worth noting that some of the wild speculation comes from RS like IGN--and Wikipedia is based on RS, unless they can be proven wrong, which they cannot because the game was never released.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I agree that this section--originally copied from the GA Sonic X-treme--needs to be cut substantially.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Satisfactory?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd probably cut the last two sentences of the first paragraph. But those two paragraphs are enough to describe why there's no Saturn Sonic. - hahnch e n 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment (citations)
The article looks comprehensive and generally well-structured, but it is overcited in many sections; multiple citations should be considerably trimmed (improved, see below): Please check the whole text and remove redundant citations; the current usage is jarring for readers (and makes verifying the content difficult for reviewers). I'll leave detailed reviews to the game experts, and will strike out my oppose, when the handling of citations has been improved. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple statements of fact should only have 1 source. If multiple sources exist, the most reliable one covering the whole statement should be used.
 * Several review or critic summaries include up to 7 citations, but actually lack factual details. It would be a lot better - and informative for the reader - to limit such overviews to the 2-3 most comprehensive reviews and include some details from those sources.
 * If multiple citations are used to source a possibly controversial fact, 2-3 of the most reliable sources should suffice. Any more citations will actually weaken the sourced claim.
 * In general, single statements should not be pasted together from multiple sources, whenever possible (sometimes it's unavoidable). See WP:SYNTHESIS for a possible risk of such sourcing.
 * GermanJoe, I have trimmed dozens of citations. Does the article now meet your expectations, or are further cuts needed? On the reviews front, I have emphasized the common criticism that Daytona was not accurate to the arcade version, expounded on the short length and limited availability of Burning Rangers, and consolidated several reviews into single citations (the esoteric and mostly 2D nature of Nights was already discussed). (I would love to go even further and explain that Daytona ran at 20 FPS versus the 60 FPS arcade game, whereas a few months later Virtua Fighter 2 ran at 60 FPS with better than arcade resolution, but the reviews I found weren't that informative. Moreover, its hard to get too detailed without crossing into WP:UNDUE territory.) No more than three citations are currently used for any statement, and there are specific reasons in each case why I used the citations I did. Many of them lead simply to a "cf." or additional note that provides further context to the narrative covered in the body.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the trimming, I have changed my vote to "comment" above. There are probably a few more possible spots, but I agree, it's a case-by-case editorial decision. Just avoid overciting relatively uncontroversial statements. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Dank
I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake
Generally a very good read. The only things that jumped out were a few mistakes with the citations in the body of the article, and upon checking some links that needs dealing with. That's the references and now for the other stuff. Once these are dealt with, I think I can Support this article's promotion. Once they are dealt with. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In first paragraph of "Launch" section - "Virtua Fighter, a nearly indistinguishable port of the popular arcade game, sold at a nearly one-to-one ratio with the Saturn hardware at launch and was crucial to the system's early success in Japan.[10][32][11]" The citations are out of numeric sequence. This needs addressing.
 * In the third paragraph of the same section - "Within two days of its September 9, 1995 launch in North America, the PlayStation (backed by a large marketing campaign[57][42]) sold more units than the Saturn had in the five months following its surprise launch, with 100,000 units presold in advance and sell-outs reported throughout the U.S.[41][58]" Same as above, for the first pair of citations.
 * In final paragraph of same section - "Tekken surpassed Virtua Fighter in popularity due to its superior graphics and nearly arcade-perfect console port, becoming the first million-selling PlayStation title.[68][64][69]" same as above.
 * The link to Sega Pluto points straight back to this page.
 * The links to Chris Senn and True color both lead to disambiguation pages.
 * You should go through the article's references and make sure the dating method is consistent. While most used the numeric ymd method, there were more than a few that used month-day-year (eg, June 11, 2007). Citation dates really need to be consistent in an FA.
 * The game reviews from Edge are redirecting. It's just a simple matter of the old url featuring "review" and the new ones saying "reviews". It's a very simply matter of updating the urls.
 * I have addressed all of your comments, with one exception—I don't see where Sega Pluto is linked in this article?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked too, and I can't see it either. I did use the Disambig links rather than my eyes. And speaking of my eyes, I've seen a couple of things I missed: Ref 77 as red "Check date values in: |accessdate=" message that needs dealing with, and Refs 19 and 130 are unarchived 1Up references. As the site is pretty much dead, this needs addressing.
 * Fixed the date. The 1UP references are archived.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. As I said above, I support this article now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Does this FAC need source and image reviews, even if perfunctorily, if it had them last time? (Sorry; I need something to keep this from going totally inactive.) Tezero (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If no images have been changed or added since the last nom, then I'd expect Nikkimaria's from the previous to stand. I'd like to see a source review from Nikki or Laser brain this time round though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp
I'll review this either later today or tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: A fantastic read; it's been a while since an article of this size kept me as interested as this one did. The article is certainly broad in its coverage and well focused, and I must commend the amount of work that has been done in preparation for this FAC. I've come into this conversation late, after all outstanding concerns were already addressed, so it wasn't a total surprise that after a full read nothing strikes me as falling short of FAC standards, though I should note i'm relatively new to reviewing at FAC. Accordingly, I limited my previous two reviews to source checks, though I note requested a source review from either  or  on December 30. Ian, is a source review still needed for this to pass FAC? And if so, considering nobody else has done one would you accept one that came from me? I don't want to go to the effort if you'd only accept one from a considerably more experienced reviewer. Freikorp (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Freikorp, thanks for commenting and the offer to source review. I don't want to in any way discourage you from undertaking source reviews (this discussion at my talk page goes into what's needed, including a link to Nikki's guide) but in this case I would prefer to see Nikki or Laser brain involved, partly to follow up on GermanJoe's points above re. citations. Just FTR, as I understand that this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, I'd normally also be looking for a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, but a very extensive content check of references was undertaken at the article's first FAC, so I don't require that this time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the details in the infobox do not appear to be sourced in the article body
 * "Silicon Graphics subsequently collaborated with Nintendo on the Nintendo 64" - do we really need three sources here?
 * Quotes of longer than about 40 words should be blockquoted
 * Don't use formatting like |publisher=Chicago Tribune - publication titles should be in the "work" parameter, not publisher
 * Some periodicals include publisher, others don't - be consistent
 * Nintendo Power is a work and should be italicized
 * FN27, 106, 167, 193: missing italics
 * FN38 is in Japanese
 * FN123, 124: page(s)?
 * FN125: volume formatting doesn't match other periodicals
 * How are you ordering the Bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I put the titles of the books in alphabetical order. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns with a few recent edits, except with regard to the Japanese language source (given this article is about a Japanese company, is that really such a problem?) and footnotes 124/125—I will have to see if I can find that information, because those citations appear to have been copied from the FA Sega Genesis by another user.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe they meant that you should have "|language=Japanese" in the reference since the text is in Japanese. I added it for you. -- Pres N  19:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anyway, while I was able to find this scan of the Man!ac source, the page number is not visible. As for Screen Digest, something tells me Red Phoenix would have provided the page if he had it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * just to confirm, are you happy with responses/actions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still seeing some details in the infobox that are unsourced - I don't know enough about video games to be able to tell whether these would be common knowledge, but my sense is that some at least would not. I would also suggest adding the scan of the Man!iac source to the citation, for convenience. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Manufacturer", "type", "retail availability", "discontinued", "units sold", "CPU", "storage", "graphics", "online services", "predecessor", and "successor" are all sourced in the body; "media" is sourced either with the provided citation or in the body; "generation" isn't directly stated in the body but should be common knowledge.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So... are we good? Tezero (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.