You should consult with major contributors to the article to determine if it's ready for FAC before submitting it for nomination. Gary King (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not the main contributor to this article, but I don't believe it is ready just yet. It hasn't been copyedited and I don't think the prose is up to standards. Sections like "Setting and plot" are crufty and need to be majorly trimmed.
Okay, I'm working on that. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Also there is still an unsolved debate about whether Pokémon Platinum should be merged to this article. Also, I don't think this article can be declared comprehensive until Platinum is release in the United states. Then the final decision to merge will be decided. But as of now I think this nomination was premature, and it appears that the only reason this was nominated was because I had nominated Pokémon Red and Blue a few hours earlier. Artichoker[talk] 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not true. As I said, I noticed that you had just nominated Red and Blue, and it was a coincidence. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, ref #34 is missing publisher and accessdate information. Artichoker[talk] 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Tezkag72 did not follow WP:FAC instructions, and normally, this FAC would be withdrawn. Because none of the significant contributors appear to be currently active, I'm going to let it run, but Artichoker's statement is already a large indication that peer review might be a better step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the instructions and I thought I did everything it said. What did I miss? Tezkag72 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You did not notify the major contributor of the article. His last edit was 6 days ago, but his second to last edit was seven months ago. I will notify him anyways. Artichoker[talk] 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. You're right, I should have. When Tragic Kingdom, an article I significantly contributed to recently, was nominated for GA (yet unfinished) I was not notified. Someone who knew I had worked on it had to tell me it was nominated. Okay, I'm going to work on the "gamecruft" problem. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Tragic Kingdom - I left a note on the talk page with the obvious edit summary "Listing at WP:GAN". If you had been watching the page - indeed, why weren't you? - you would have noticed this immediately. -- Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions 13:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. It's a link to the Pokémon website, a pre-release page about the "upcoming" Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. If that's not right, then "borked" must not mean what I think it does. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The formatting was off, it had part of its wikicode showing, but it's fixed now.
Some refs are lacking notices that they are in a non-English language.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; fails 1b. At a glance the reception section is woefully incomplete, cites three reviews only, and has a citation needed tag. The development section also looks underdeveloped (oops, bad pun), while the gameplay sections (at a very cursory glance and based on my recollection of the game) appear to have excessive amounts of content; review WP:GAMEGUIDE. More work is needed. Giggy (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Perhaps for the moment, more citation and a bit more information—as per Giggy—might help the article a lot more, actually. The prose could be improved, though I nominated it for peer review a while ago for the purpose of fixing it up. Perhaps more peer review and further contribution will help it. I'm leaning towards saying yes anyway. -- Sotomura (yell : see) 07:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I spent some time removing crufty details, fixing links, etc. and I think everything looks okay now, except for some of the references. Not really my thing but let's go work on that. Tezkag72 (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You are supporting your own nomination? Gary King (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, for now. The prose needs some work, a statement or two needs a citation, and some of the details in the "Gameplay" section are unnecessary. I'm not sure if these concerns can be addressed in time; it would probably be best to take it to a peer review. Ink Runner (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.