# Talk:Segagaga

@MrMajors: and @Namcokid47:, it's about time we discussed this on the talk page before any more revisions have been made. MrMajors in particular, you are also removing information with your reverts. So it's best you don't remove the archived links. If you have concerns, or you believe it doesn't do it as accurately as you like, it's your job to discuss it further. Especially if Namcokid47 claims the information is in the source..Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

NamcoKid is not correct that the information is in the source. Futhermore this discussion is unnecessary as the reasons given here have already been given in the maintenance tags. But for reference, these are the current issues:
there is no mention of Okana wanting to "conceal his identity" here (https://web.archive.org/web/20080808050437/http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/the-story-sega%E2%80%99s-oddest-game-ever?page=0%2C1), only that the mask is to "promote the game". If he is trying to hide his identity then why is he signing games while wearing it? (https://web.archive.org/web/20080809044424/http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/the-story-sega%E2%80%99s-oddest-game-ever?page=0%2C4)
there are not "300 copyright issues regarding it's characters" or only 100 that Okana could resolve due to "time issues" - the article (https://web.archive.org/web/20080808050437/http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/the-story-sega%E2%80%99s-oddest-game-ever?page=0%2C1) says there are over 300 issues, but not all copyright issues, nor does it say why only 100 were resolved - they could be technical issues, financial issues etc.
the contents of the Collectors box require a citation
the mobile phone standalone game release date of June 6 is not the date given in the source (https://web.archive.org/web/20190929085438/https://www.famitsu.com/k_tai/news/2005/06/02/607,1117700642,39904,0,0.html)
the two volume soundtrack release dates require a citation
the "Segagaga 5 Original Soundtrack" release date of July 21 is not the date given in the source (https://web.archive.org/web/20190929085438/https://www.famitsu.com/k_tai/news/1180929_1350.html)
MrMajors (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you just proven how necessary this discussion really is. These are things that if you wanted to be addressed can be done better by actually discussing it and be clear.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, these are edits you could've been bold enough to clarify or adjust. Instead of adding "failed verification" tag.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course I could, but in my experience NamcoKid reverts to his preferred version anyway, so the outcome is the same. MrMajors (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
All the more reason why you should've brought this up in the talkpage or been clearer about the problem from the beginning. Just adding the vague "failed verification" tag and not clarifying why is just not assisting anyone.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I used the failed verification span to precisely highlight the exact text that failed verification, that's the opposite of "vague".  MrMajors (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah but "failed verification" can be anything. it could be no source covers it, it could be that it does but it's not accurately presented in the text. It could be just as simple as date being wrong. Which you highlighted here in more detail. So yes, it is very vague.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Everything you said in this discussion, was not made obvious in your catch-all "failed verification" tag. there are more relevant tags to use. And even, the point is to discuss it after an editor disagrees with your assessment, not edit war.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
These "failed vertification" tags also cause needless clutter and honestly just makes it harder to read. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should take more care to avoid introducing factual errors in the first place? MrMajors (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this passive aggresive behavior should be brought up in ANI?M What do you think MrMajors?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Segagaga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm absolutely calling dibs on this one, not to mention I probably owe you a couple of favors, Namcokid47.  Expect me to work on this over the next couple of days.  Red Phoenix talk 19:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I knew somebody would cover this one eventually! I look forward to your comments. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
We use Sega Taro in the body and Taro Sega in the lead.  Need to pick one and keep it consistent.
Fixed.
The budget was small, with Okano claiming it was "less than a hundredth" of Shenmue. While this is probably accurate, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek as a comparison: Shenmue cost over $50 million and was ridiculously expensive by video game standards, and a hundredth of that is still $500,000.  I would either try to express it was a bit of an "off" comparison (if you have it sourced anywhere), or just express that the budget was small.  There's not enough space in the lead to express that the comparison was to the most expensive video game in history at this point.
I've seen publications bring up this fact, and while it may be true it does seem pretty strange of a comparison. I included it anyway since I imagine others would try to add it in, but I've gone ahead and removed it. Changed to just "it was made on a small budget".
development teams will increase the player's stamina and "creativity", detrimental to later sections of the game. Are both of these detrimental?  That's sort of how it reads at the moment.
Both of these have a massive impact on the later portions of the game.
Towards the end of the game, Tarō pilots a starship known as the "R-720", a nod to the R-360 arcade cabinet, into outer space that features a shoot'em up level reminiscent of Thunder Force — Tarō will fight various mechs designed after older Sega game consoles, such as the Sega Genesis and Master System. This sentence runs on.  I would break it up a bit.
Fixed. You're right, it does run on.
Do your sources say "Sega Hitmaker" a lot?  I'm doing research on AM3 now, but I haven't seen a lot of "Sega Hitmaker", just "Hitmaker" or AM3.  If your sources say it though, or you feel it's unclear, it's not an issue.
The AM3 article has a redirect for "Sega Hitmaker", and I've seen other reliable sources refer to it as "Sega Hitmaker" to help specify it, so I think calling it "Sega Hitmaker" is fine.
Cool.  Then it's fine with me ;)
Whenever you have the author's name in reviews, use it.  Saying "Hardcore Gaming 101" and "they" is less accurate than "Kurt Kalata of Hardcore Gaming 101 and "he", for example.  If a review has an author's name on it, it's important to stress it's that person's opinion—although it's okay to say it's the publication's if the article does not have a writer's name on it or says "staff".
Fixed this. I need to use this more.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but I'm not personally a fan of repeating the same ref over and over through a paragraph unless it's interrupted by a different ref.  That being said I won't hold you back over this difference in style, but it's something worth considering.
I do this just for the sake of proving that everything is verifiable. It shows that everything in the article is correct and backed by a reliable source, and also helps prevent people from adding bogus info or made-up nonsense.
That's fine; as I said it won't be a blocker. It's not a policy so I won't enforce it as part of this GA review, but you may want to have a look at WP:REPCITE, just as food for thought. (It also has a suggestion if you want to go with it but still prove it's all verifiable.)
Reference consistency: what template are you using that's putting the magazine publisher in front of the name of the publication?  That's odd.  Also, I'd say if you're going to put the language of the source in the reference (and I agree, it's a good idea), make sure to do that for all the sources.  I see some Japanese ones that don't note they're in Japanese.
I didn't decide to include the Japanese language parameter in these since I felt it was just pointing out the obvious. Of course a Japanese ref is gonna be all in Japanese. I added it in anyway, though, so who am I to complain.
I appreciate you fixing it.  It may seem obvious to us, and I would say you and I and quite a bit of the video game editing community could pick out Japanese against other languages, but not all readers will look at the characters and go "Ah! That's Japanese!"  At least we shouldn't assume that.
Aside from that, I see a few more run-on sentences but I will correct those myself today.  They will be easy enough to do without introducing confusion.  Otherwise I think we're there.  Good work.  Red Phoenix talk 19:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix:: I believe I fixed everything. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Namcokid47: All right, everything looks good.  I gave a little more feedback above, but nothing that's actionable.  I also did a little more touchup on the article, and I'd say we are at GA status.  Great work.  P.S. I look forward to your finishing of the review for Altered Beast soon.  Red Phoenix talk 00:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Well gee, maybe you'll get it today? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)