Talk:Sega Meganet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Red Phoenix

Hello again, Red Phoenix. I look forward to working with you again. I will read over this article and begin the review shortly. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It'd be a pleasure, Quadell. I look forward to your feedback; I worked this from a stub to a full-fledged article in a matter of a day or two, so I'm willing to bet it's quite raw and could use a quality set of second eyes such as yours. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Redirects: Since Mega Modem redirects here, the words should be bolded when first used in this article. It would also be better to use the term in the first paragraph. Also, I think Sega Mega Anser (and Mega Anser) should redirect here, not to the Genesis article, which would mean that the first use of that term should be bolded as well.
  • Corrected. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    Great, but Mega Anser should be bolded the first time it's mentioned, in the lead, not the second. Also, I still think the Mega Modem is important enough to the article that it should be mentioned (and bolded) in the lead. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lead: Speaking of which, the lead should really be expanded a little to adequately cover all sections. Perhaps a tad more on the game library and/or reception?
  • Did some slight expansion. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    Great, but see above. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Is it true that "The system offered ... Mega Anser"? It sounded to me like the Mega Anser was separate. Though both used the same Mega Modem, wouldn't you have to buy that system separately? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "The system offered several unique titles that could be downloaded, and a few could be played competitively with friends. In addition, it shared technology and equipment with more serious services such as the Mega Anser, used for banking purposes."
  • Used your wording. Thanks. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: "would be short-lived and last approximately a year before being discontinued" sounds redundant. Perhaps "would be short-lived, lasting approximately a year before it was discontinued"?
  • Again, used your wording. Thanks. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Question: This article says that around 1989 or so, "Sega began work on an Internet service, similar to what Nintendo had attempted with the Nintendo Network for the NES." But the Nintendo Network article says the service was launched in 2012, and has no information on any earlier incarnation. Was it called "Nintendo Network" back then?
  • It was, according to reference #3, but it appears to be something that's been kicked around as a name for an unreleased NA version of the service. What's being referred to is in the article Famicom Modem. Perhaps the Japanese name referenced for that service, "Famicom Tsushin", would be a better term, and can link to Famicom Modem. I'll make that happen. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    Nice one, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity: Did JP¥12,800 include the cost of the Mega Modem? Or did the consumer have to buy the modem, then pay JP¥12,800 as a start-up fee, then pay 800/month?
  • Changed to "for the modem". Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    Okay. I changed to "for the equipment", since it came with a cartridge. Hope that's fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Just for my curiosity, do you know about what 12,800 yen in 1990 would equate to in current dollars (or 2000 dollars)?
  • I do, thanks to reference #3 estimating it at around US$100. I've added this to the article; was a little skeptical about doing this, though. There was a big stink in the review for Sega CD a while back about not having a price in British pounds, and all the WP:WORLDVIEW dealings I've had to try and balance everything out. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    I don't know if it belongs in the article or not either. But thanks for clearing that up for me. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity: When you say "it was eventually cancelled for the region", do you mean it was never actually released in North America? (It sounds like you could mean that it was available for a time, but was later cancelled.)
  • That is what's meant. Commonly in the video game industry, "cancelled" is the term for an item that has been announced but not officially released, and "discontinued" is the term for something that was available for a time and no longer in service. However, I'll go ahead and clarify this, as it's not really a whole lot of difference. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity: It's easy for a newbie to confuse the Mega Drive, Mega Modem, and Meganet. The last paragraph of "History" twice refers to "the system". Since the previous paragraph wasn't about the Meganet proper, it would be best to replace the second mention with "the Meganet system". Similarly, the next sentence would do better to say "a remodeled version of the Mega Drive console".
  • Done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: In my opinion, the sentence beginning "Third-party developers were unwilling..." is a tad awkward and should be reworded.
  • Reworded. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    Ah, that's good. I reworded a little more. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity: "praising the concepts and the ideas to bring online gaming to video game consoles". That's really one idea, not "concepts and ideas", which is redundant anyway. Also, didn't Nintendo already do this? If so, it wasn't really Sega's "idea". Perhaps it should be something like "praising the early initiative to develop online gaming for video consoles" or something.
  • Used your wording, but from the Sega-16 article it seems like Nintendo's and Sega's services were targeted differently. However, no worries. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: "Adam Redsell of IGN noted the basic features of the service, and despite noting..." Redsell commented on the basic features?
  • Reworded. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Quotes: The last paragraph of "Reception and legacy" is almost entirely a single, long quote. Consider quoting only a portion of that, and rewriting the rest as a summary of the author's assessment in your own words.
  • Busted this up a little bit. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    That's perfect. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article, while short, is quite strong and is reasonably complete. It is well-organized and well-sourced. All images are used appropriately, and there are no bias problems. A few problems and opportunities for improvements are listed above.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   All issues have been resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   (thankfully)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm happy to promote this Good Article. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed about everything. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Great work, Red Phoenix. Just a little more left to do. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

All set. What a good day it's been; Sega Genesis passes FAC today and now this for GAN too. Good day to be a Wikipedian. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Congrats! – Quadell ^(talk) 21:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)