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 15:54, 26 July 2007.

---

Super Nintendo Entertainment System[edit]

Self-nomination We have been working on this article for several months, most impressively going from 5 to 56 references. It has had two peer reviews, the most recent receiving almost no feedback, and has just passed GA with the comment that it is good enough to be nominated for FA status. I eagerly await your comments. Anomie 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional oppose Another video game article! My judgments are based upon Nintendo Entertainment System and Wii. Madcoverboy 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would recommend moving all of the cruft about technical specifications and enhancement chips to a sister article or list and rewriting the section in a more readable summary style.
   • Wii has a Technical specifications section, which doesn't even follow the MoS guideline on embedded lists, and NES has a technical specifications section in a style similar to this article, so I'm not sure where this recommendation comes from. Technical specifications are an important part of the console, and are needed for FA criterion 1b. A separate article about the technical specifications would end up on AfD (for being not notable, or some part of WP:NOT in a deletionist effort to counter the WP:BIAS you mentioned above), and the likely verdict would be to merge it back into this article. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     • Are the "Quick reference" boxes necessary? Because they unnecessarily break up the format of the article at 1600x1200 and (obviously) repeat information that already is (or should be) in the text. I didn't see these boxes on the NES or Wii articles. Madcoverboy 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
       • The discussion that led to their creation is at Talk:SNES#Old vs New. They compromise between the big list-o-information some people like to see for technical specifications (as in Wii) and the encyclopedic prose style required by the MoS, and IMO serve the section as "other media" towards FA criterion 3. Unfortunately, my display does not go to 1600x1200, but the section looks very nice at 800x600 and 1024x768. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   • The enhancement chips section has already undergone two rounds of summarization to reduce the cruft, but a "List of Super NES enhancement chips" list could do better by completely removing things like "ST010" from this article. I should also rewrite the section as prose per the MoS guideline on embedded lists. I will look into this later today. I may also propose a merge of some of the existing SNES chip articles into this list. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
2. Include more about the launch and bestselling games, lessons learned from the NES and competing game systems.
   • I wish that I could add more information on the launch. Unfortunately, there are a dearth of sources on this matter. At the time, most gaming magazines were not online and those that still exist have not bothered to transfer their archives to their websites. I've read both Game Over and The Ultimate History of Video Games, but neither has more useful information than what is already in the article. The newspaper articles I've found in Google News boil down to "Yup, it was released". Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
   • I've just had an idea that may work to add information on some few notable games, but Mortal Kombat/Mortal Kombat II and Donkey Kong Country will probably be the only two. "Best-selling games" are out, as such a section is both a cruft magnet and suffers from a lack of reliable sources. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
   • As far as I've seen in the sources I've found, the major lesson learned from the NES was "no ZIF connector!". Coming off the over-90% market share of the NES, if anything Nintendo refused to learn any lessons there might have been from competing systems in time for them to affect the SNES. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     • I've been unable to find any sources regarding lessons learned, even about the decision to abandon the ZIF connector. Anomie 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
3. Condense and combine the sections on lockout and emulation and discuss the licensing of the technology and games more.
   • "Lockout" and "Emulation" are unrelated issues, in fact emulation can and does completely ignore two of the three lockout methods. Combining them would be like trying to combine "Geology" and "Culture" sections in a country's article. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     • I don't see how they are different. Lockout prevents game cartridges from different markets from being interoperable or accessible. Emulation is a method for circumventing these physical/hardware barriers. They both reflect design choices to protect copyrights. Moreover, much of the information on the design aspects in "Lockout" should be in the "Technical Specifications" anyway. Madcoverboy 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
       • Lockout prevents cartridges from other regions from being played on the console, just like DVD region coding prevents importation of discs. Emulation eliminates the console completely and allows the game code to be played on a PC; bypassing the lockout is a side effect and bonus. In fact, while the physical and CIC lockouts are easily ignored in emulation, the PAL/NTSC differences must be emulated and it would easily be possible to create a NTSC-only emulator. But just as the voltage on one pin of the PPU is sufficient to select 50 versus 60 Hz output, only a few lines of code are needed to do the same in an emulator. You're right that the lockout section should be moved to the technical specifications section; I've done it already. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
   • I will condense the lockout section (not so much information is needed regarding bypassing the lockouts), but I can't see what to remove from the "Emulation" section after the recent major cleanup. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
   • Information on the end of Nintendo's exclusive licensing policy (mainly since Nintendo was no longer the only game in town) is a good idea. I think I can work it in with the MK and DKC additions. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
     • The sections need to be reorganized, although I wasn't able to find any standard structures for these types of articles on the WikiProject. I would recommend: Intro, History (to include "Market Share"), Technical Specifications, Peripherals, Titles, Hacking (to include the "Emulation and controversies" and "Enchancement" chips as well as the "Regional lockout" that isn't incoporated into "Tech Specs - Game Cartridge." Madcoverboy 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
       • I don't agree that a "Hacking" section is appropriate, and Enhancement Chips definitely doesn't belong there. I'm also not sure about putting Market Share into History, both because it doesn't fit the narrative flow of the section and because a section heading seems necessary due to the nature of the Nintendo/Sega console war; IMO, it works best at the end of the article, as it brings a note of conclusion to the text. How about "History, Notable titles, Emulation, Technical specifications, Peripherals, Enhancement chips, Market share"? History of the console flows nicely into the historical nature of the new Notable titles section, and Emulation follows cleanly as post-history. Then the article changes gears to discuss the technical aspects of the console, followed by the add-on peripherals and the add-ons in the cartridges. Market share at the end gives the sense of conclusion to the article. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• • Weak support I still don't like those info-boxes in the technical specs section since they muck up the formatting at 1600x1200 and appear to be largely redundant with the text, but the article has improved to FA status even if it could be improved further. Madcoverboy 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Some minor cleanup (grammar) and copyediting would probably make the article even better, but it's in good shape and would make a fine FA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting to the History section to make it read less like a sensationalized news story or press release. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Other sections may also benefit from similar copyediting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional oppose The emulation section is a mess. The sentence that lists the number of systems that the SNES has been emulated on (the one that starts with PSP) is not cited. A sentence about Snes9x and ZSNES citing the Snes9x and ZSNES forums does not pass WP:N – they need to be supplamanted by reliable secondary sources independent of the creators. Could also mention what SNES games have been ported to Wii Virtual Console, as well. hbdragon88 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Hbdragon88 no longer opposes, see this comment. Anomie 00:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • References added: each system now has a reference to an emulator for that system; there may additionally be other emulators. Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • WP:N does not apply: "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples suggests the following, which is the case for the forum sources you challenge:

    An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may , exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online.

    Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See List of Virtual Console games (North America) (17 listed), List of Virtual Console games (Europe) (15 listed), and List of Virtual Console games (Japan) (24 listed). Further, "new" games are released weekly. Such a list would be difficult to maintain and completely out of place for this article. Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not saying list all of them, but perhaps list the first one that came out? Okay, so WP:N wasn't the right policy. How about the fact that they are not verified by relisable sources, secondary sources independent of the creators? I wouldn't lean on WP:SPS too much, I think that maks for a weak article. hbdragon88 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the first Virtual Console release is any more relevant to this article than the first GBA remake, or the first game to have been playable on an emulator. The first games released for the system itself are barely relevant enough for mention on the basis of their being first.

    I've been dealing with SPS and related issues since I started trying to improve this article, and it has forced me to dig deep into WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and the like and to consider the intent as well as the letter of the policies. I've reached several conclusions. The fact is that primary sources are not always bad, they are just easy to misuse and cannot establish Wikipedia:Notability. Secondary sources are not always available; in this case because emulation isn't "newsworthy", reports on emulation might invite retaliation or legal issues, and niche news sources generally simply report releases and review games. Self-published sources are not always bad, and can contain information that is relevant but that no one else feels a need to repeat. If you have specific weaknesses in mind, I will do my best to either strengthen or remove them. Generalities, however, are not helpful. Anomie 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Comment Do NOT let GA class status influence your vote, as I discovered that the reviewer who gave this article GA status does not even know the GA criteria. The article will now undergo a formal GAC review. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not appear to have been considered in the above, and I am finding it difficult to AGF based on your heavyhanded tactics. If you want to do a GAR, go ahead, but there is less call for you to demote the article without reason than there was for the original reviewer to promote it without using the checklist. Anomie 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these sentences could be better phrased, "Although each system is essentially the same, due to the different designs, each system can only play the games specifically made for its system." "Emulation projects began in 1996 with projects such as "VSMC" and "Super Pasofami", which, despite some important initial gains, did not last long past 1998.". Epbr123 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to correct the two sentences you mentioned, and added some references in the process. KieferSkunk has already copyedited the History section, and I have requested a similar review of the rest of the article. Feel free to pitch in with further suggestions. Anomie 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support. Looks much better now. KieferSkunk has done a good job. Epbr123 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can't take all the credit. Anomie has made some great edits and suggestions as well. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well-done Anomie. Epbr123 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thank both of you for helping. Anomie 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.