Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard/archive7

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 not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

Charizard[edit]

First failed FAC, Second failed FAC, Third failed FAC, Fourth failed FAC, Fifth failed FAC, Sixth failed FAC

There has been some work on this article, and I feel that it is time to try and make it a featured article for the seventh time! - ~VNinja ~ 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¿Qué? Erm. This just failed FAC two weeks ago. WP:WIAFA criteria 1c is still failed, badly. Yeah... -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very little has changed since the end of the last FAC. Still needs more about the concept of the character from an out-of-world perspective. Gimmetrow 05:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not nearly enough out-of-universe perspective. MLilburne 10:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Give it at least two months. It needs more than just 11 days. TheBlazikenMaster 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'Biological characteristics' paragraph is short, looks like an afterthought. The prose sucks in the "In the Pokémon video games" sub-section, so that needs fixing too. This isn't quite ready yet. — Wackymacs 13:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happened to reference #8?--Rmky87 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as its considered poor taste to renominate so soon after the last nomination. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hardly actionable. If you think it hasn't changed enough to meet the objections at the last FAC, that's fine. But waiting long enough since the last FAC is hardly a criterion for featured articles. ShadowHalo 10:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take it how how you will, but that's surely what I meant. To pass an FAC so soon after the last there should be significant improvements, which really have not taken place here. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still has the same lack of secondary sources it had two weeks ago. Next time please look through the failed FACs. This has been brought up on every one of them. Quadzilla99 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would pokemon guidebooks published by Nintendo and Prima count as reliable sources? The Placebo Effect 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but the problem is that they don't talk nearly enough about Charizard. -Amarkov moo! 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For reasons stated above. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[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.