Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur/archive1

Bulbasaur

Right, after the previous, special edition 2-disk FAC (1, 2) and 2 peer reviews (1, 2), I have decided to renominate it. Since the FACs, it has had a full, comprehensive rewrite and I have asked people who hate Pokémon/aren't Pokémon fans to review it and they have said (after some alterations) that they fully understand everything it says. It is well referenced and I believe the prose to be brilliant. Without wanting to violate WP:BEANS, I can't think of anything else I could do to improve it. If there is anything that you can see and I can't, I'd be more than happy to rectify it but I don't want this to be a debate about whether we want Pokémon on the main page, the precident it will set for the rest of the Pokémon creature articles or the general notability of Pokémon creatures generally. Please keep this directly on-task to the article and whether it meets the criteria for featured status. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I was against this article previously, feeling that it didn't focus on Bulbasaur as a fictional character enough, and was too focused on how Bulbasaur was portrayed... but now this looks good. Notability is established, details are given in terms of fictionality as opposed to suspension-of-disbelief, it looks pretty comprehensive, follows guidelines, is referenced... I think this works as a FA. Since the subject came up frequently last time: to future voters/reviewers- "Subject matter" is not a criteria of featured articles. Any article that is notable enough to exist on WP in the first place, is notable enough to be featured if well written and comprehensive etc. I say that this article is. Fieari 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I did not vote the last time this article was up for FA status, as I was unsure if the article deserved a full support vote. I was very close to supporting the last time, and now after reading the revised article, I can with confidence vote support. KnowledgeOfSelf 17:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, for the third time. The revised version of the article is, by comparison, far better than the previous one. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The article reads well, even for someone like me who doesnt understand pokemon in the least. Banez 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support for the third time. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, since this time it's been well improved since the last time we've done the FAC votes. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 20:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Feels like I'm supporting a whole new article. Marvelous. RyanGerbil10 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - There is absolutely nothing bad to be said about it now. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - This puts the old article (and every other pokemon article) to shame. Dee man45 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object This article still reads like a fan page but with more mature and professional language. Example: "Bulbasaur cannot speak and are only able to communicate by repeating syllables of their species name ("bulb", "bulba", "saur") using different pitch, tone and body language to convey moods" sounds inflating, especially the words "pitch," "tone," "body language." This is basically saying that the creature cannot speak, but people still understands him (the links of those words seem unnecessary in my opinion). What's different "tones" of his speach? Any examples? Unlike wolf howls or bird chirping to mark their territory, I think there's nothing distinct, special, and important about the way Bulbasuar speaks. This is just one example of inflating this Bulbasaur to make the article seem more professional; there are many other examples if you read closely. I think if you take away these extraneous language (often unfounded and withour source), and look just at the bones, this article is just a game/fan/stat page, which many others have already pointed out before. Temporary account 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you name any unfounded, unsourced statements? I would think "tones" should be self-explanatory. How is the description of the sounds they make "inflating"? I don't actually understand this objection... Fieari 22:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll give more examples if I have time. But now regarding the "tone": I watched Pokemon, and it seems to me that there is really not much to elaborate or add about the communication between the trainers and the creatures. Are there any meaning to Bulbasaur's use of pitch or tone when it shouts "bulba" or "saur?" Does high tone or low pitch or high pitch with low tone mean anything? If you think so, cite the episode number and instances. I can't think of any. Also, do you have any reference as to Bulbasaur is a reptile? For all I care, it can be thought as a mammal, or a plant for that matter. Where is your source? Also, I think the article is still geared to people who already know what Pokemon's about, since without playing the game, a reader is not going to understand what is attack points, levels, classes of Pokemon...etc. Temporary account 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

      I'm going to nip the "non-fan" bit in the bud. I asked 3 non-fans who know nothing about Pokémon and they understood everything that I said in the article. So that is totally untrue. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

    • And another comment, I don't think you can write a FA article just based on Bulbasaur. Not that Bulbasaur is a worthless subject to write about, just that there are not that much important information about this creature. If you substitute Bulbasaur with any other pokemon, and write about their game roles, TV appearances, stories...etc, it is just another same article, don't you agree? Temporary account 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I don't agree, and I don't think this objection is actionable. This article is specific to Bulbasaur, and replacing it with another Pokemon would change the article substantially. The particular example you have called out is unactionable at best. I too have watched Pokemon, and the tones Bulbasaur uses for speaking are fairly straightforward- low tones for sad situations, higher tones for happiness and situations of stress. However, such details uncalled for and may even be original research. Asking for specific citations of episodes and instances would detract significantly from the quality and readability of the article, adding large amounts of trivial and technical data which the casual reader has no use for. As Pokemon articles stand, this one is unique, comprehensive, and meets all FA criteria. RyanGerbil10 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

        Yes, I agree with this interpretation. We are discussing this article - not others. This is comprehensive, well-written (a subjective criteria that many on this page alone agree with) and referenced (though possibly not fantastically: nonetheless, referenced), stable (no edit wars) and neutral. It meets all of the criteria. Length is not a criteria and objections based on this are not relevant. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

        • Every claim you make in a FA needs to be sourced. If you treat Bulbasaur like a animal species (which this article does), and mentions it uses its tone to communicate, the readers will need examples. Also, who says Bulbasaur is a reptilian, and is taxonomy really important for a Pokemon? Essentially, this article is composed of: introduction, appearance in game, appearance in anime. Do you really think this warrants a FA? All the prose reads like taken from any fan-page or anime summaries. Almost all the sources are game guide books, anime books, or TV guides, which are hardly considered appropriate sources at all. The guidelines for FAs are pretty short and nonspecific. It says an article must have verifiable sources and written as...etc. Surely this Bulbasaur has sources, but are they any good? If you have any Pokemon biases or any biases at all, throw them away and just read this article and compare with other FAs. Think about it. Temporary account 00:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I disagree that this article treats Bulbasaur like an animal species. It used to... which is why I objected to it previously, but it's been changed to emphasize the fictional aspect, and provides a discussion of the character as a fictional character. Compare your objections to other current Featured Articles, particularly Captain Marvel (DC Comics), which is often hailed as a prime example of everything an article on a fictional character should be. It talks about where the character appears, features of the character, references to the character... a lot of the aspects of the Captain Marvel article can't actually be reproduced in the Bulbasaur article, such as influences, since that information has never been published. But you'll see that the tone of the Captain Marvel article and the tone of the Bulbasaur article are similar. They both try to include the same sorts of information, and in the same way. Fieari 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

            Again, I agree with this. It does not focus on the creature as an animal species. The reference to reptillian was aimed at allowing readers not familliar with Pokémon to understand the information. An image of a reptile is easier to comprehend than an animal made entirely of plants. Making paralels with the real world is essential for improving readabnility. Anyway, I changed it to "reptillian-looking", happy now? --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

            • Exactly my point. What I wrote a couple paragraphs before is that "And another comment, I don't think you can write a FA article just based on Bulbasaur. Not that Bulbasaur is a worthless subject to write about, just that there are not that much important information about this creature." See how much information a reader can get from reading Captian Marvel, and how little you learn about Bulbasaur in this FAC. If Pokemon is a FAC, maybe, but I don't think there is much to be said about Bulbasaur. Plus, you can easily shorten the article if you take out extraneous wordings or minor details about Bulbsaur's appearances...etc. Even though Captain Marvel and Bulbasaur are both fictional characters, one has rich history (in real life and also in comic books), but the other one doesn't. I think this is very clear, and no spin here. Temporary account 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

              • Tell me the pointless wordings and I'll remove them. Nobody else seems to have this problem so it seems you're on your own - Bulbasaur is just as relevant a subject as Captain Marvel (who, incidentally, I'd never heard of). And as I've said many times before, length is not an FA criteria. Comprehensiveness is and this article is comprehensive. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object Pretty much what temporary account says. Plus the article totally lacks inline notes (or just sources) for characteristics and anime sections, with one scant IGN source for the video game section. I mean, why not reference the pages for a myraid of pokemon books? And to me bulbasaur looks like some sort of proto-mammal by the way his legs extend directly down instead of sprawling out like most reptiles. It's got ears for god's sake. BlueShirts 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've added "reptillian-looking" as it is supposed to resemble a dinosaur, hence the name. As to the references, seeing as everyone likes comparing it to vcaptain marvel, where are the references for the "Fawcett years: the Marvel Family, allies, and enemies" section? Or "Shazam! The New Beginning"? Or "The Power of Shazam!"? Or "Captain Marvel in the 2000s" or "JSA membership (2003–2004)

"? Or "Day of Vengeance"? Or "Other series"? Or "Character biography" (like the characteristics section of Bulbasaur)? Or "Powers"? Or "Supporting cast"? Or "Cultural influences"? Or "Appearances in film and television"? I agree with Rubne Welsh below - this is just a vendetta against Bulbasaur because it's a Pokémon. Raul will be able to see through all of this to the core fact of the matter that Bulbasaur is a great article, meeting all of the criteria that should be featured. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object The nomination was promising, and I read the article with full attention. Unfortunately, it hasn't changed much: some rewriting, but the structure and content are substantially the same as in the previously submitted version. In light of the recent Talk page discussion about checking FAC references, I picked this FAC (partly because I'm quite familiar with it already) to see how much work it would take to check out...references. The results in this case are rather disappointing, to the point where I'd say the references as a whole don't hold up to even mild scrutiny. Here's what I found:
  • Bulbasaur CotW, pojo.com. - supports "The Bulbasaur card is considered "common" by collectors and generally can be found with relative ease. This is a plain text page on a fan site, a stats-style listing of Bulbasaur characteristics, with no apparent discussion of collectability.
  • Pokémon, Pashmina Hot in Britain, Mimitchi - supports "Bulbasaur and other Pokémon toys beat out Furby to become the most popular and most bought toy in the United Kingdom" Besides the dubious value of the entire assertion (limited scope, outdated reference to 1999), this use of the source material is questionable, if not an outright misrepresentation. The article is only an early pre-Christmas rush assessment of 1999 UK toy sales, which goes on to say that it is "based on sales to the end of November" and "'Pokemon is looking good, but the scenario changes everyday, so I'm making no predictions,' said spokesman Gerry Masters."
  • Pokémon banished from another playground, CNN and PokéMania, Time Asia - supports comparison with "Carmen Miranda" and that Bulbasaur is a "lead critter" in Pokemon. The apparent importance--Time says! CNN says!, particularly by positioning the material in the first paragraph of the lead--seems quite exaggerated when the sources are examined. In the first instance, the CNN Miranda remark was a minor bit of editorial color, part of a description of three Pokemon characters, and the only mention of Bulbasaur in the 900 word article: As any good "Pokédex" on the Web can tell you, some of the lead critters are: Pikachu, the popular favorite, an "electric" Pokémon all yellow and cuddly; Jigglypuff, classed as a "normal" Pokémon who appears to be a large lilac head with cat ears and feet, little more; and Bulbasaur, a "grass/poison" type Pokémon who evolves into Ivysaur and Venusaur, each with increasingly exotic foliage on its head -- perhaps the Carmen Mirandas of Pokémon figures. The Time aricle also mentions Bulbasaur briefly, one mention with other characters in a 3,750 word in-depth Pokemon article: For example, of the three more popular Pokémon, Hitokage, a salamander with a ball of fire on its tail, became Charmander; Fushigidane, a dinosaur with a green garlic bulb on its back, became Bulbasaur; and Zenigame... Also, "lead critters" comes from CNN not Time, as represented in the article.
  • NOTE: The non-website material is c. 1999 (one book. "Perfect Guide", is out of print), and this is not explained - Why are the references all from the period when Pokemon was first blowing up worldwide, yet there is no timeline context in the article? Has Bulbasaur vanished from the media in recent years (six years being nearly forever in the digital/gamiing world)?
  • Guides:Super Smash Bros. Melee, IGN.com - supports "Bulbasaur also appears as a trophy in Super Smash Bros. Melee...". IGN is a major gaming site owned by Fox; perhaps their content is to be reasonably trusted. However, it seems curious to cite an arbitrary second-hand review source (one of number of big game sites) to support product info about another game title. Either no citation is required, or the Nintendo game guide or other official publication would be a more appropriate source (citation padding by including any random source handy that has the desired content is not helpful).
  • Bulbasaur’s Bad Day, Amazon'' and Pokémon Tales, Volume 3: Bulbasaur’s Trouble, Amazon - support the brief summaries of two children's books featuring Bulbasaur. In each case, the summaries here are rewordings of extremely brief (1-2 sentence) Amazon.com book summaries. I'm not sure why these are in References, linked to Amazon? As sources for the book summaries, Amazon with its 20 total words of source material each is...insubstantial. As evidence that the books do exist? Either way, it seems like citation padding.
  • McDonalds’s Pokémon Series I & II, Rita’s Pokémon Store - supports coverage of a MacDonald's Pokemon card promotion in Japan. The stated name of the site, which seems to be a fan site/online store, cannot be found on the linked page, nor on the site Home page (which says "JawaAtLarge's Neofriends Page"). Author and/or source of the article are not given, nor is it dated. Was it written there, or copied from elsewhere? Basically, this reference appears to be a paragraph of entirely unattributed text plucked out of cyberspace.
  • I'm in the inner circle. The Guardian - supports In a Guardian Newspaper satire about Ken Livingstone Mayor of London, the writer references Bulbasaur as one of the Pokémon Ken wants to trade. A questionable use of the source, and its purpose in the article is unclear: to establish "notability"? As trivia? The source article is parodies a London, UK city council meeting, where instead of proceeding, the Mayor and others sidetrack into a Pokemon trading session. Bulbasaur is mentioned only once, along with other Pokemon, in a much longer Pokemon riff. The entire Bulbasaur mention is: "But before I kick off the meeting proper," said Ken, unloosing the belt on his safari-suit, "may I just ask anyone who has a Bulbasaur worth 40HP or a Charmander worth 50HP to tell me at once, because I am in a position to arrange a swap with a Geodude, also worth 50HP, and a Diglett, admittedly worth only 30HP but with a resistance factor of 30. Any takers?", in an 850 word column. The article is not about Bulbasaur, the mention is about Pokemon, not particularly Bulbasaur, and it's not even clear whether Pokemon is used for a reason, or whether any "playing at business" activity could have served the same purpose. In any case, a stretch.
  • Barbo, Maria. The Official Pokémon Handbook. 1999 and Loe, Casey, ed. Pokémon Special Pikachu Edition Official Perfect Guide. 1999 - These game guides are given as general references for the article. The 1999 date of both books raises again the question of timing of sources. These books were written, for one, in the 150 Pokemon universe, which later expanded to the 386 Pokemon world of today (according to this article). The use of possibly outdated sources is a concern. Has Pokemon/Bubasaur not changed or evolved, even as the "franchise" expanded and the number of characters more than doubled?
  • Statistical analysis of Bulbasaur, Individual animé episode summaries, May's_Bulbasaur - listed as general references. By appearance, these are three fan sites that could be any of thousands. There is no evident reason to assume anything more authoritative or definitive from their material than, for example, using this article to reference itself.
  • Long list of links to to other WP articles, included at the beginning of the References section This is a little odd--can WP really self-reference?

In summary, NONE of the references really hold up, individually or taken together, when attempting to verify the article. --Tsavage 22:48, 23 February 2006 (EST)

• • • I happen to own the Official Pokemon Handbook referenced by this article, and I can say that the information presented in the article is a factual representation of the book. As for the criticism that the book is too old to be used as a reference, I do not see why it is valid. Bulbasaur has changed very little over the years in terms of appearance (I am not aware that it has changed at all) and description. Tsavage makes the point that the 1999 guide was written when only 150 Pokemon existed, which is true, and that now there are 386, meaing that the 1999 guide is no longer a valuable resource. Just because there are now more Pokemon does not mean that older sources existing for older Pokemon are now obsolete. This would be a valid argument if the book was cited for one of the 236 new Pokemon, but it is not. Other sources may need to be checked, but criticism of the 1999 Pokemon guide in unfounded in my opinion. RyanGerbil10 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment + Object I think Tsavage really hits home regarding the issue. I looked through the sources as well, and really except for game books (which are not really quality sources at all), none of the sources are reliable, with their reports either inadequate or distorted. This indicates that there's an effort to do citation padding to make this article look more important and substantiated than it really is. With this in mind, I don't think the article is of FA quality with "only" game manuals or strategy guides as reliable sources. Temporary account 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Do the sources satisfy Wikipedia: Reliable Sources#Evaluating secondary sources and Wikipedia: Reliable Sources#Using online sources? --maclean25 07:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, references from 1999 are still very valid. Bulbasaur hasn't changed (at all, I don't think) since then. More have been added to the franchise but the original 150 are still the same as they always have been. What a silly objection. You're just searching for reasons to oppose when there aren't any to be found. Also, about the Guardian, the writer had 150 Pokémon to choose from, why choose Bulbasaur? Because it's the most famous. Also, on the subject of Amazon, I think we can trust it not to publish stuff about books that don't exist. References padding? That's tosh! What better proof can you get that the books exist? Also, CNN/Time. Thjis goes back to the Guardian thing - why choose Bulbasaur? Because it's one of the most well-known, popular and notable. Isn't it surprising that they all mention Bulbasaur, when none of the other Pokemon they menntion are the same? Why put it at the top of the article: It's all to do with telling the reader why they should read the article. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Promotion I have to say it is much improved...nice job.--MONGO 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, based on what Tsavage and Temporary Account have said. This is basically a fan-page gussied up to look like a FA with the help of some trumped-up citations. Although in theory any article capable of passing AfD can become featured, the reality is that for subjects like Bulbasaur there is probably not enough information that can be added from credible sources and not enough that can be done to make it interesting to a general audience. Personally, I think that those who are intent on getting Bulbasaur up to featured quality would do better to focus their energies on promoting the main article Pokémon itself. Andrew Levine 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  How preposterous! We can work on this if we want. Every single article that can pass AfD can become featured. It meets all of the criteria (see the comment about this above) so should be featured! Fan page? Pah! It's the most encyclopedaic and comprehensive information about Bulbsaur anywhere on the internet! I've never seen a fan page looking like this one and I've seen some pretty terrible fanpages - have you?

• Strong Support I'm not sure what would constitute "trumped up" citations, short of them being completely fabricated (which, as far as I could see, they're not) considering the article is about a fictional character. It's not like there's a huge POV dispute here. Major improvements make this a worthy article (while the earlier incarnations were not). -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 10:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is starting to look more like a vendetta against the subject matter rather than a good faith attempt to bring the article to featured status. At the time of this comment there are 47 other featured article candidates that could use such a thorough assessment of sources as this one is getting, yet I don't see it being done. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment + object. I don't think there is any vendetta going on here. There is a lot to argue about subject matter, but just throw it aside for a minute and analyze the facts, and facts point that there just isn't that much to write or source about Bulbasaur unless you elaborate and elaborate your language and "trump" up your citations. I read through all the sentences citing the sources and the citations themselves, and I have to agree with Tsavage, that these are really crappy sources. There is no vendetta here, but we are being reasonable critical here. Temporary account 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Given the number of people disagreeing with you on your objections, you may as well give the possibility that you may be wrong a second thought. Also, your need to write "comment + object" to every comment (after having objected already) does not reflect favorably on your argument that this is not a vendetta either. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

      Thank you Rune - add some scale to the discussion. There is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be featured if you look at the criteria but some people just can't get over the fact that it's a Pokémon article - and it's good. This is what happened before - people desperately searching for criticism where it isn't there to be found. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)