Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pikachu/archive1

Pikachu[edit]

A good article.

Object A good article cites it's sources. Not a single reference in there at all. Right off the bat the article cites a reason for Pikachu's name, which is uncited, although justified with a "probably". Get a peer review on this, solve remaining issues and then renominate. Thethinredline 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as per Thethinredline. TomStar81 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as per Thethinredline; although I am a member of Wikiproject Pokemon, I must object; this isn't as good an article that we can produce. Dee man45 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - pre Thethinredline. Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like a joke nom. The anon that placed the nomination has no other edits. Can this be removed from the FAC page? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines say to assume good faith. There have been worse articles brought here. --maclean25
  - Yes, but this was nominated by a first-time editor with an obvious throwaway username shortly after an anon commented on the Bulbasaur nomination that, "I guess similary Pickachu and all others should be FA too." —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on References, what am I missing here? People object to this article because it lacks proper references, but support Bulbasaur? They have the same core references. The only real difference is that this article put the three website references used in Bulbasaur in its "External links". The additional references used by Bulbasaur are simply an article of CNN/Time that mentions the subjects name, an esoteric video game guide (even the reference does not explain what Super Smash Bros. is), and a second-hand account claiming that McDonald's gave away promotional cards with the subject on it. By this Bulbasaur standard, all you would have to do is move the contents of "External links" into "References" (and remove the second sentence of the article and the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Name Origin") to have proper references. --maclean25 06:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pikachu is a more culturally well-known figure and so more information can be included about it than about any other Pokemon, information still lacking in this article. It has, for example, had a balloon in the Thanksgiving Day Parade in NYC for a number of years now. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why i initially voiced my objection to the Bulbasaur nomination, as if Bulbasaur is granted FA status, what there to prevent 250+ Pokèmon articles, all well written i assume (i specifically cited the Snorlax page which is almost equal in quality to the Bulbasaur page) from all being eligible for FA status?
- What they mean by references is that if a specific fact was mentioned, such as the meaning for the creature's name, then we must have a source for it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Reply to above comment what there to prevent 250+ Pokèmon articles...from all being eligible for FA status?: Nothing. Any article at all that is eligible to be on wikipedia in the first place is potentially eligible to be a FA. Potentially, meaning if enough information can be found, it's well written enough, references are used, is stable, is factual, etc etc etc. Why does this bother you? If every article on each of the 250+ pokemon were featured, that would mean that 250+ more articles on wikipedia were of exceptionally high quality. That's a good thing. On the other hand, I don't think that there's enough to write about each of the 250+ pokemon individually for them all to be featured, but that doesn't change the fact that if there was enough to write about them, they could be featured. Pikachu definitely COULD be featured, there's plenty to write about it, but currently, this article isn't good enough. Fieari 15:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - Additionally, I think it might be a good idea for the nominator of this article to read WP:POINT. In particular, this bit:

If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...

do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus
don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion

If you think that FA shouldn't include certain topics simply because you don't find those topics serious, the best way to go about this is try to get the policy changed through the normal official channels, not to nominate a bunch of articles you also think are not serious to prove your point. Fieari 15:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the other Pokemon want to become FA's, they go through this similar process. And, as for "this is boring, this should not be an FA" is something that I really think should be outright discouraged, since there are many topics that I wrote that people go "this sucks" or "wtf is this," and there are some topics that leave me scratching my head. But, we all work on different things, and no matter what we work on, we should be able to write great articles, and have some of our work be featured on the WP front page, not because the topic is interesting, but mainly because the community feels that the article is our best work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 04:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. War of the League of Cambrai doesn't interest me in the slightest - this doesn't affect me wanting it to be featured. 250+ Pokemon FAs are good as that means 250+ more articles on Wikipedia are brilliant and exemplary. Surely our goal is for every article to become FA? --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Pikachu is nominated to poke fun at the Bulbasaur nomination. BlueShirts 03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above comment - that may be true. However, there is the "assume good faith" rule, and there is plenty of information here to make it a candidate, if an unlikely one. In fact, the only thing stopping it from gaining my vote is the addition of more pictures.Dee man45 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - innadequate references; badly structured; the prose, in my opinion, isn't compelling. It will be an FA one day but that day is certainly not today. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]