Talk:History of Sega

History of Sega has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 24, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 7, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Video games: Sega Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Sega task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Sega/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 06:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
A good rule of thumb is that the lead is to be 3 to 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD since the article has over 50,000 characters.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
See my comments below.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
y
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Discussion

For criteria 2b and 2c, I'll look into detecting any copyvio problems, all dead citations must be archived or replaced and all live citations have archives in case they go dead. Other than that, there aren't any problems. Any thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjones23: You have a fair point on the lead; I'll look at expanding it today. Citations should all be archived; to be sure I ran the IAManagement Bot through it again and looked for missing items. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sjones23 As requested, I have expanded the lead. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. If there's no further objections or concerns, I'll go ahead and pass it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio problems detected on my end. This article is now good to go. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]