The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I really do hate to strip the only remaining Pokemon FA... but this is frankly in worse shape than Charizard, soon to fail six consecutive nominations. Almost all of the sources are either primary material or the Serebii synopsis of the primary material (Serebii synopses have zero interpretation). Of the few that aren't, there's an article on the creation of Pokemon that does happen to say the word "Bulbasaur" once, some various fansite Pokedex entries, and two or three game walkthroughs. I'm obviously not counting the things which have no relevance at all to the article, and are included in the references section for no immediately apparent reason. Oh, and there are some generic "handbooks" that really only give yet another Pokedex entry. -Amarkovmoo! 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom. Yes, I find it terrible that the last one has to go, but these things happen. At least the sound will stay. TheBlazikenMaster 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Ideally, we'll be able to get a few FAs out of the merged creature articles. You Can't See Me! 18:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People of the Pokemon Project, I have returned, by the grace of God! Rally to me! Now, this last hope won't die out! and nobody dare merge it! What is right, is right! The merger curse will end, as I speed up my work on this article! ZapperNapper has already infuriated me and Toastypk by continuing evo-lines! This is going to stop! Now, the rage of innocence begins! Vikrant Phadkay 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's going to stop? The improvement of articles and better adherence to WP:FICT? I have learned my lesson about using "fanboy" at the Gundam robot deletions, but I'm struggling to find a better word for you - you've made no logical argument and instead claim they rightfully deserve their own articles. --Teggles 23:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news for all of you - ZapperNapper's pet section templates have been deleted. My prophecies are coming true. Vikrant Phadkay 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prophecy about the end of mindlessly keeping Pokemon articles and saying they are well sourced when they aren't? -Amarkovmoo! 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i love how he subtly avoids making any real personal attacks :) btw, Vikrant, take a look at my recent contributions. I've been operating at a very low level lately, so i'd appreciate you desisting from saying i'm doing things i'm not. In fact, i'm more focused on developing the idea fully before mergers happen so that information isn't lost, everything goes smoothly, and articles will still be able to be broken off later. and talking about my section templates is only adding salt to a wound, it's an immature statement that has no place in this discussion. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up—we're jumping to FARC already? If so, might as well speedy delist. — Deckiller 22:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone forgot to list this on WP:FAR. — Deckiller 22:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meep, sorry. I wondered why few people were commenting. -Amarkovmoo! 04:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Problems presented at the Torchic FAR and the six failed nominations of CHarizard have not yet been fixed. I know it isn't FARC time, but I figured I would jump on the bandwagon. hbdragon88 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Remove declarations are not made during the review period. After a review of about two weeks, if concerns aren't addressed, the article moves to FARC for an additional period of at least two weeks, during which time editors may declare keep or remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to put a note on top of every FAR or something Sandy. Quadzilla99 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the sourcing problems mentioned above, I would like to raise a comprehensiveness concern. There is no discussion about the concept and creation of Bulbasaur nor the reaction to Bulbasaur within the article. Jay32183 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there are very few reliable secondary sources. This also struggles to pass WP:NOTABILITY, please remember notability, not popularity. A suggestion is to merge into Bulbasaur evolutionary line, this will make featured status much easier. Also, a key point is to provide more real-world focus. I think the only real-world information is mentioning the creature's existence in certain games, cards and manga. Everything else is fictional. Creation information needs to play a large part, and legacy information also needs to be there. If this can't be found, the article needs to be de-featured, and in an extreme (but bound to happen otherwise) case, merged into a list. --Teggles 02:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't this "legacy" info your talking about covered by the Other media section? I think that's what your talking about, but i'm not sure. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information on McDonald's toys in that section is legacy information, but that's obviously not enough by itself. --Teggles 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too find the sourcing concerns of utmost importance, and would almost go as far to suggest this speedy-progresses to FARC. Daniel 07:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter if this is delisted in two weeks or three, but I can assure you that nobody knows of any better sources for any Pokemon. -Amarkovmoo! 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. I'm sure that's a violation of WP:V (verifiability, not truth), WP:NOTABILITY (notability, not popularity) and WP:NOR (no unpublished facts), all criteria for deletion. I have no idea how previous consensus decided that those guidelines and policies don't matter for Pokemon. --Teggles 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's not supposed to.... the article should be about bulbasaur, not about the entire battling system. It is not necessary to completely grasp aspects like turn based battling, or item usage to understand Bulbasaur. As far as the extra info would go, it should only be necessary to explain types, moves, and evolution - and even then, some versions have gone too far (like listing how every type would affect it). -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right to an extent, but the article is rather scarce in terms of explaining jargon, which is a guideline. For example, I have no information on what a Pokédex is. Things like this aren't hard to explain, replace "The in-game Pokédexes of the video games say that..." with something like "An information database in the video games called a Pokédex reveals that..." --Teggles 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said they didn't, and claims like that are a little insulting. All the information in this article is verifiable and not OR (there is one statement i found calling Bulbasaur Ash's "most trusted" which should prolly be rmed). The only guideline that species articles are in danger of breaking is WP:N, and it only recently was promoted from an essay (most likely due to everyone treating it like a guideline anyway in debates like these). -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it fails WP:V because the information is not all referenced, and when it is not all referenced, it is OR. I also don't care about the origins of WP:N, right now it is a guideline, and its former status is irrelevant. --Teggles 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on that: The lead only has one reference, "Biological characteristics" has no references, and the second half of "In the Pokemon anime" has 1 reference. In addition, every section has unreferenced claims slotted in with referenced claims. This, I think, should be the main priority. After that, creation information. --Teggles 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list leaves out way too much that requires citiations. But it isn't just the lack of reliable sources, but the inclusion of unreliable ones. Jay32183 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been a requirement that every claim in an article have a reference, Teggles (I'm assuming you mean "inline citation" when you say "reference" above). The lead section should be a summary of the rest of the article, for example, and should thus require no inline citations (since claims should be footnoted or Harvard referenced in the article's body). See User:Raul654/When to cite for ideas on when a source citation is required. — Brian (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, but there is a lot of information that could easily be disputed that is uncited. A COMPLETE SECTION missing citations is terrible. For the lead comment, I also realize it should be a summary and contain no citations, but it is not a summary. The majority of content in the lead isn't even covered in the article, which is why I said it needed references. --Teggles 04:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. If there's information in the lead that isn't repeated elsewhere, that's a problem with the prose, yes. — Brian (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok, how's the lead now? and also, it would be more helpful if you were to add ((fact)) tags to the info you feel needs to be sourced. Personally, looking over the article i had a hard time finding much. I either sourced it or removed it. let me know! -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting citation needed tags everywhere would completely overload the article. I call lies when you say you had a hard time finding much. The lead is better, but the name information (second paragraph) is unsourced, very original research, and unmentioned elsewhere. --Teggles 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please don't accuse me of lying, that's not helpful. i'm only asking you becuase it is not appropriate to ref every little thing, only that which has been disputed or is likely to be disputed. I assume you don't mean the article to have an inline ref when it says Bublbsaur is a Grass/Poison-type. That's like wanting a ref to say that Mickey Mouse is indeed a fictional mouse. so if you tag the parts that are in question, the community can decide if there really is reasonable room for doubt, or you're just being overzealous for some reason. and then, likewise, we can find refs for the material you want. a large majority of info is taken directly from the games, anime, and manga. the anime and manga is pretty well documented as specific facts are taken from specific volumes (see my section below on the anime). it is enough to cite the date of bulbasaur's unveiling, we don't need to add a little footnote though to every sentence. i've gone through again... if there's anything i've missed, please add fact tags so others can either agree or disagree with you. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. I still don't understand how it made it in the first place. —MichaelLinnear 06:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord. We don't vote on anything yet this is FAR not FARC, how many times do we have to go over this? See Sandy's comments in red lettering above. Quadzilla99 14:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—before adding pile-on "delist" or "keep" votes during the FAR phase, please read the instructions. We improve articles on FAR; we vote to keep or delist on FARC. — Deckiller 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did have one question about when the article is making reference to the anime. For example:
Before joining his team, it lived with a girl named Melanie, who took care of abandoned Pokémon. It is unclear whether or not this Bulbasaur had been abandoned, but Melanie was not its Trainer, she was merely a friend.[1] Originally, this Bulbasaur was pessimistic about Ash, and when it and his other Pokémon were separated from him, it insisted to the other Pokémon that he had abandoned them.[2] However, following this episode, its loyalties began to improve and it eventually became one of Ash’s most faithful Pokémon.[3]
^Pokémon - Pikachu Party (Vol. 12) Viz Video., November 23, 1999. ASIN B000021Y6R.
the preceding example shows two different ways to cite the anime. one is to reference a well established fansite that is accessible to internet users, another is to reference a compilation video. the third option is to merely cite the anime, with no refs per se... something like "... she was merely a friend. (Episode #10 - Bulbasaur and the Hidden Village)" -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either your second or third option is better (i.e., don't use Serebii). Plot synopses should be in present tense, by the way. — Brian (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the article, and no offense, but the prose and grammar weren't great - on top of that, I think it told a bit too much. For instance, do we REALLY need to know that Ditto pretends to be a Bulbasaur, or what kind of game Melee is? Here's my attempt at fixing it:
In the video games
[[:Image:Bulbasaur pokemon red.png|frame|right|215px|A Bulbasaur (left) in a battle with a Charmander in Pokémon Red[1]]]
Bulbasaur made their first video game debut on February 27, 1996 in the Japanese games Pocket Monsters Aka (ポケットモンスター 赤, Poketto Monsutā Aka, "Pocket Monsters Red") and Pocket Monsters Midori (ポケットモンスター 緑, Poketto Monsutā Midori, "Pocket Monsters Green") (replaced in other countries by Pokémon Blue).[2] Along with a Charmander and Squirtle, it is one of three starter Pokémon available at the beginning of the games. When the games were translated to English, Pokemon Green was replaced with Blue. Bulbasaur's grass type is in contrast to Charmander's fire type and Squirtle's water type. While Bulbasaur has the advantage over Squirtle, Charmander has the advantage over Bulbasaur, and Squirtle has the advantage over Charmander. If the player selects a Bulbasaur as his or her starter Pokémon, the rival will select the Pokémon best suited to defeat a Bulbasaur - in this case, a Charmander.
Bulbasaur and the other starters from Red, Blue, and Green are replaced by Pikachu in Pokémon Yellow, the only starter available in it. Instead, they are obtained throughout the game from various trainers. The original three starters are only available in the above mentioned games, the Game Boy Advance remakes Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, the Nintendo 64 spin-off Pokémon Stadium, and other spin-offs such as Pokémon Mystery Dungeon where the player can choose to play as a Bulbasaur (among 15 others), and Pokémon Snap, where Bulbasaur is one of the Pokémon that the player can take a photograph of.[3] Bulbasaur also make appearances in Hey You, Pikachu! and Pokémon Channel. In Super Smash Bros. Melee, a Bulbasaur appears as a trophy in a lottery, which the player may participate in by using a currency known as "Smash Coins".[4]
Besides the lack of sourcing for my addition (that your rival will take the Pokémon with the advantage, and that each Pokémon has an advantage over one of the others, but is weak to the other starter), how's it look? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References
^ MacDonald, Mark; Brokaw, Brian; Arnold; J. Douglas; Elies, Mark. Pokémon Trainer's Guide. Sandwich Islands Publishing, 1999. ISBN0-439-15404-9. (pg73)
Suggested FA criteria concern is reference quality (1c).Marskell 07:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1b) is also a problem, there is no creation information, and little information on merchandise, promotion etc. --Teggles 12:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. As discussed above, 1c is pretty much shot here. -Amarkovmoo! 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Not comprehensive, no discussion of creation or reaction. Fansites still used as sources. Jay32183 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist—1a and 1b, maybe 1c. — Deckiller 18:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - the fact that I had to cleanup a portion of the article shows that it's not featured article quality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:48, 6 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.