Pikachu

This is the third nomination. The issues of the second nomination have been resolved. It is comparable in quality to the other two Pokémon-related featured articles: Bulbasaur and Torchic. Considering the notoriety of Pikachu, this should have had an FA-quality article long ago IMHO. I think it's finally ready now.

• Of course, I Support this nomination. --Kitch 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What happened to citation #31? And please move citations so that they consistently follow punctuation,^[1] like this.^[2] --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed that; it's an error that happens if the first appearance of a named citation tries to refer to an earlier citation by that name (in this case, the first was <.ref name=movie/> and the second <.ref name=movie>Reference</ref>). The latter is overridden by the blank in the former. —Cuiviénen 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object fair amount to do, see Peer Review script I left on talk page.Rlevse 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Well-written and well-referenced, but you have a problem with the placement of the references. They should be placed after commas and periods; you have several problems of this in the early sections. Example: "Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon, and is generally regarded as the mascot of the Pokémon franchise, in the same way Link is the mascot of the Legend of Zelda series, or Mario[4] is the mascot for the Super Mario franchise and Nintendo [5]." The [4] is pretty distracting, and the [5] should go after the period. Check the whole article for stuff like this. Also, I'm not sure if you need all these references. In the video games section, you have references (in the middle of the text) directing to the games' amazon.com profiles. I checked the Bulbasaur and Torchic articles, and they only have 1 or 2 references to Amazon. If people want to learn about the game, they can click on the wikilinks.

The whole article should have a spelling and grammar run-through, as I noticed some glaring mistakes in the anime section. -Dark Kubrick 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have fixed the ref placement issue now. Jeltz talk 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that there is also repeated information in some of the sections. An example would be Pikachu evolving into Raichu via the Thunderstone; this is in both video games and characteristics. I would also remove the got milk? ad, and try to find a picture of Pikachu in one of the parodies. -Dark Kubrick 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with that the referencing is a bit over-zealous at times in this article but I could be biased since I went through all of them to correct the style. :) Jeltz talk 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A comprehensive article that only needs a few minor touch-ups. --Gray Porpoise 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One article on one Pokemon could be FA. Two, maybe. I think this is getting just a shade ridiculous, however. The FA is the best example of Wiki work possible - just because there is a dedicated fanbase doesn't mean each Pokemon article that is ruthlessly edited should make FA. That said, Pikachu is the obvious choice among the pokemon articles for FA, but there are too many already. --24.11.220.107 07:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that is a valid criteria to object. Judge the article on its own merits, not on whether there are already enough pokemon FAs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • That isn't valid reasoning for an objection. 24.11.220.107, please refer to Wikipedia:What is a featured article? If the objection isn't based on something there, then it's invalid. Ryu Kaze 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "That said, Pikachu is the obvious choice among the pokemon articles for FA..." Wouldn't Pokémon be the most obvious choice for FA? Just asking. Andrew Levine 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object -
  • Does not satisfy 2(a). Compare this sentence from the lead: Pikachu is among the most recognizable of the Pokémon... with this from the next paragraph: Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon. Also compare this sentence in the lead: In the Pokémon universe Pikachu are ground-dwelling mammals... (missing a comma and we have already established that Pikachu exist only in the Pokemon universe) with this from the body: Pikachu are oftenly mistaken for rabbits, but are really mice. (oftenly?) Why not call it a mouse in the lead instead of saying "ground-dwelling mammal"? Another problem sentence from the lead: Coincidentally, there also is a mouse-like lagomorph that makes its habitat in North America, known as a pika which may have affected the North American name, Pikachu. First, this is weasel text ("may have affected"). Secondly, if it did in fact affect the name, it's not a coincidence. Here's a comma splice from the lead: Pikachu often travel in packs, and are rarely territorial, however, when threatened, a group can generate... The rest of the text has similar problems.
  • Has reference problems. I picked this sentence at random from the lead for a reference check: Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon, and is generally regarded as the mascot of the Pokémon franchise, in the same way Link is the mascot of the Legend of Zelda series, or Mario[4] is the mascot for the Super Mario franchise and Nintendo.[5] These two footnotes do not support the claim made in the sentence. I didn't bother checking any other refs. I also see a lot of footnotes after game names, such as "Players playing Pokémon Yellow[15]..." What is supposed to be referenced here? That players play Pokemon Yellow? The footnote links to an amazon.com page about the game; I don't see the relevance. Also, the references are inconsistenly formatted. I suggest using templates like ((cite web)) to standardize them, like this. Other references, such as "Pokémon Adventures ISBN 1569315078" need critical information such as an author.
  • Fair use problems. You can't use both Image:Pikachu.png and Image:Pikachu 18.gif in the same article and realistically claim fair use for both; they're too similar.

Pagrashtak 16:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Problems with references, e.g. what sort of reference is "All-Pokémon dialogue" (no further details given), and [http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=m-Game-0000-127 either has one bracket too much or too little. More attention to detail needed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Poor prose, fannish stuff, lack of referneces, I can go on. I won't. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]