Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon Red and Blue/archive1

Pokémon Red and Blue

Nominator(s): Artichoker[talk]

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pok%C3%A9mon_Red_and_Blue/}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pok%C3%A9mon_Red_and_Blue/}}

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It is currently a GA, and has gone through a peer review. After the demotion of Bulbasaur and Torchic more than a year ago, this would become the Pokémon Wikiproject's only featured article. I will try to respond to all concerns as quickly as possible. Artichoker[talk] 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Object. Sorry but the article's sources are of woefully inadequate quality. So far I see only two sources that aren't entirely video game self promotional. In other words all of them but two make money by making these types of things look more important than they are. This makes it impossible to write a balanced and comprehensive article. WP:NPOV's undue weight provision cannot be properly satisfied if all of the sources are POV. And I spent some time checking on Google books and Google scholar just for a start and more mainstream treatment of the subject does exist, so there isn't an acceptable reason not to include it. Consider the Homer Simpson article as an example. It's not even a FA yet, but as a fictional topic it has far better sourcing than this has, and it should probably be improved as well. The best of FAs should be emulated, not the worst. I'm sure you can find other poorly sourced FAs but that doesn't make it a reason to promote another one. - Taxman ^Talk 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I'll try to add some "better" sources. I already got started [1]. Artichoker[talk] 15:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.gamefaqs.com/
  • http://guides.ign.com/guides/16708/page_172.html (ref is also lacking a publisher)
  • http://www.gamer20.com/features/182/2/
  • http://www.the-magicbox.com/
  • http://nindb.classicgaming.gamespy.com/index.html
• http://www.hookedgamers.com/articles/preview/660/pokémon_platinum deadlinked (also what makes this a reliable sources)
• current ref 24 (Harris, Craig) is lacking a last access date

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, GameFAQs can be used for release data, which is the only thing it is used to cite in this article. The second source is from IGN which is reliable. For the third source, this seems to indicate it is reliable. I have replaced ref 4. I have removed ref 5. Hooked Gamers is apparently down right now, but I have checked and it is reliable. Once it's back up I will check again though. I have fixed everything else. Artichoker[talk] 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for the IGN game guide, we don't know the author, and I'm not sure that just because IGN published it that it's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Let's go through it again:

  • http://www.gamefaqs.com/ - already established to be reliable for release information per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources
  • http://guides.ign.com/guides/16708/page_172.html - per this, I think the guides are written and edited by the IGN staff
  • http://www.gamer20.com/features/182/2/ - per this, I believe the site is reliable
  • http://www.hookedgamers.com/articles/preview/660/pokémon_platinum is currently down, so we'll wait for a reasonable amount of time to see if it's back up. Artichoker[talk] 15:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - lack of proper print sources on the subject, fails comprehensiveness. Layout is rather haphazard and messy. The plot doesn't fully cover the game. The images don't meet WP:NFCC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quick fail; more work is needed. Considering these are two of the most influential games of the 90s you would expect a good deal of print media, or non-GameSpot/IGN sources. The reception section is very undetailed and the gameplay sections especially need copyediting and polishing. Not ready yet, sorry. Giggy (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)