Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard/archive5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charizard[edit]

First failed FAC, Second failed FAC, Third failed FAC, Fourth failed FAC

Full of sources and reliable information. Although I am not a member of the PCP, I definitely feel this article meets FA standards. Please do not let your personal opinion on Pokémon fail this article. This article definitely meets FA standards regardless of subject. Andros 1337 21:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Erm, got a reference for being considered the coolest Pocket Monster? Wiki-newbie 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks like a well-written article. Joiz A. Shmo 00:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Greatly improved since the last time I read it. It was close then, I think it's there now. Jay32183 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quite possibly better than the other Pokemon FAs we have. DocDragon 05:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, and full of citations. Oppose, you know what? Gzkn has some good points. --RandomOrca2 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC) --RandomOrca2 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Not well written at all. Fails 1a. Some random examples:
    • The name Charizard is a portmanteau of char, the first syllable of "charred" or "charcoal",... Umm, charred is one syllable. It's also the past tense of "char", which means "to burn". There's no need for "the first syllable of "charred" or "charcoal", referring to the act of incinerating objects with flames (or the objects themselves)".
    • As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries, Charizard change form through evolution, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle,[4] and would grow a pair of powerful wings, which would allow them to fly at altitudes approaching 4,600 ft (1400 m), supplementing the fiery breath they would inherit from their earlier forms of Charmander and Charmeleon. Huh? What Tony would call a winding snake. The conditional "would" really throws readers off here. "caused by gaining experience in battle" is ungainly.
    • The flames they could produce as Charizard could be hotter than those produced by Charmeleon; at full intensity, they would have the power to melt solid rock or large glaciers. Again, why is the conditional used here? Also, link Charmeleon. Some readers won't look at the infobox.
    • Nevertheless, the power of their flame attacks would be potentially volatile enough that accidental or careless use can cause forest fires and other disasters. "Nevertheless" does not work as a transitional word here.
    • Charizard appears as a non-playable character in Pokémon Mystery Dungeon as it plays the role of a protagonist to support other Pokémon and reveal more information in their quest, although if you pick Charmander, you will be able to play as Charizard later in the game. Ugh. Please don't use second person.
    • When they enter the challenge just to look inside, not to complete it, they see a Charizard suffering, so they are suggested to capture it by the Go-Rock Squad to calm it down. Huh?
    • Strangely, Charizard's cry is identical to that of Rhyhorn. Strangely? Also, an orphaned sentence in need of a paragraph.
    • it has still featured in many ranges of soft toys and action figures
    • The system pits out against 47 different trainers, gives you the ability to catch up to 200 Pokémon and become a Pokémon Master. "Pits out against"?
    • Really needs a thorough copyedit Gzkn 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could be out of line here but would it not be best to wait more than a few hours between nominations. It seems you are hoping to push it through by nominating it enough times without changing much. Of course, just my thoughts. Dan M 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That fourth nomination ended in September.--Rmky87 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Gzkn: not well written. Also, I don't think it would make Wikipedia look good to have a featured article that's so unimportant and trivial. Also, I think it should be noted that if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then the articles that we identify as the examples of its content should be less indiscriminate than this one is in their inclusion of information. Semperf 15:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A subject that is "unimportant and trivial" (when it's not anyway) does not stop it from gaining featured status. Half your objection is invalid. Anyway, some of your sources look like fansites to me: serebii.net, smogon.com, pokemondungeon.com. Also, some of their links don't work for me (at least on my computer).--Dark Kubrick 15:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Serebii.net, although a fansite, is regarded as a trustable information source for Pokémon information. --RandomOrca2 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While its true we shouldn't exclude a topic because *we* think its trivial, we should exclude something if there's a lack of non-trivial independent reliable coverage. I see a great lack of truly indepedenent reliable coverage. Also, I see a lack real-world connection. We do have good articles on fictional things, but those articles show real-world relevance. Is there a specific person(s) who is responsible for the development of this "species"? If so, he should be named at the top of the article. What year did it start? Mentioning the toy recall in 2004 was a good example of something real, but that's the exception in the article. Articles about fictional topics should be set clearly in the context of the non-fictional real-world. Note, I haven't voted, as I concede my ignorance of all things "pokemon".--Rob 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a reference to the designer and the info on when it began.DocDragon 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Clumsy prose (good examples cited above by Gzkn. Lack of real-world relevance, and a lack of 3rd-party citations that aren't fan sites or game guides. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have done some copyediting on the article, fixing some of the problems cited by Gzkn.DocDragon 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have just read through the article, and the issues outlined by Gzkn have been satisfactorily fixed in my opinion. Tal 11:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those were just random examples! And half of them weren't even touched! The prose is still awful in many places. More random examples (please don't just fix these; the whole text needs thorough copy-editing):
    • Charizard was designed by Ken Sugimori,[2] and made his debut in 1996 in Pokémon Red. Are all Charizard male and singular?
    • The name Charizard is a portmanteau of char, referring to the act of incinerating objects with flames, and "lizard", a long bodied reptile. This sentence still bugs me; I don't see any particular need to define char or lizard
    • As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries, Charizard change form through evolution, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle,[5] and grow a pair of powerful wings, which allow them to fly at altitudes approaching 4,600 ft (1400 m), supplementing the fiery breath they would inherit from their earlier forms of Charmander and Charmeleon. Still a ton of problems with this long, awkward sentence.
    • Charizard in the wild are shown to focus on finding worthy challengers. "Are shown to focus on"? Unnecessarily wordy. "worthy challengers" is quite nebulous.
    • According to the Pokédex, they possess a strong innate sense of honor - relying on only claws and strength to hunt or ward off lesser foes, using their flaming breath only against opponents who they would consider equals. Incorrect use of the hyphen. Needs an "and" before "using". More unnecessary conditional. In fact, the conditional is still being used throughout the article.
    • player vs. player battles, battles between two players A bit redundant, no?
    • They are commonly used for their high special attack statistic, which makes their wide variety of special attacks very strong. They also have a decent attack statistic,[7] since they have a larger physical attack pool they are more commonly used for their physical attacks,[8] as they have a poor special move pool, consisting of only a few attacks like Flamethrower and Dragon Claw, as compared to their physical movepool, where they can utilize Earthquake, Rock Slide and Swords Dance to great effect. Lots of repetition. Second sentence is a run-on and grammatically tortured. Surely our FAs can be better written than this?
    • Charizard appears as a non-playable character in Pokémon Mystery Dungeon as it plays the role of a protagonist to support other Pokémon and reveal more information in their quest, although if the player picks Charmander, Charizard will be playable later in the game. Just try to read this sentence out loud.
    • When they enter the challenge just to look inside, not to complete it, they see a Charizard suffering, so they are suggested to capture it by the Go-Rock Squad to calm it down. Still here.
    • Dropping the health to half or below activates a hold item called a Salac Berry, which increases the speed of the holder, it was at first believed that the effects of it came into effect at below 50% HP, but it was found out to come into effect at below 25%.
    • There are seventeen different Pokémon types, a special attribute determining strengths and weaknesses of each species, offsetting each other in a complicated series of rock-paper-scissors relationships.
    • And I'm stopping here, about a fourth of the way through the article. This really needs a thorough copy-edit. Gzkn 13:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: please decide whether Charizard is singular or plural. I've seen "it" and "they" thrown in randomly throughout the article. Gzkn 13:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Charizard", like most pokemon names, seems to be both singular AND plural, like "Sheep", or "Moose".DocDragon 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'd read this article before, but not until Gzkn's comments did I truly realize how shoddy the writing is. -- Kicking222 14:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • object sorry. I does not seem an encyclopedia article, but a story. --Pedro 00:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object prose problems per Gzkn, and doesn't conform to WP:MOS, WP:MSH. Sandy (Talk) 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object As above, and also problems with in-universe prose, which doesn't follow WP:WAF. With all these problems, I don't think the article is even GA standard, let alone FA. -- Grgcox 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About the conditionals in the Characteristics section - Charizard ... would grow a pair of powerful wings and the like, which are commented on above. Several people, including me, have criticised them on the talk page. They're apparently there as a misguided attempt to write from an out-of-universe perspective. When I tried to take them out, my edits were instantly reverted by an editor who insists that they are needed to satisfy requirements by editors who opposed the most recent FA nomination. I think the article would be helped if comments could be made here by other editors about what WP:WAF means, because there appears to be a difference of opinions. -- Grgcox 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They are sorely mistaken if they think the conditional = out-of-universe. Heck, the examples in WP:WAF of out-of-universe prose don't feature any conditional. Gzkn 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Lack of reliable references. Almost without exception, the sources are all promotional. Little to no out of universe information, for example almost all material in the 'Pokémon anime' and 'Pokémon manga' is in universe plot summary material. Either add out of universe material or reduce the article until all material is supported by reliable sources. A 10kb article with material supported by reliable references would be a better FA than 30+Kb of fluff. Look at other FA's on fictional topics. Emulate the best of them, not the worst. - Taxman Talk 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has just received a massive copy-edit. It'd take way too long to say everything that's been done, but nonetheless the prose is a LOT better. DocDragon 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, parts of the prose are much better...User:Morgan89 did a good job with the copy-edit. However, there's still plenty of work to be done before the prose meets 1a of WP:WIAFA. Gzkn 05:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It looked good, until I realized that the sources cited are often irrelevant. For instance, a sentence saying "Charizard are famous for being one of the three pokemon players can choose..." is referenced by Serebii's Pokedex entry, which says nothing of the kind. Huh? -Amarkov blahedits 17:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just noticed that although the games and manuals are listed as references they are never used in the inline citations. Even though using third party sources is a good thing, using {{cite video game}} for the plain and simple stuff is probably ok. I doubt anyone will question the realiablity of a quote from the game or manual when there is no interpretation on it. Jay32183 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... yes, but that's not my objection. -Amarkov blahedits 17:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm aware of your object. I thought all the problems with referencing should be pointed out though. Jay32183 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Information is there, but article is not superbly written, has poor flow, and not all references are authoritative. Article is not well broken up, and looks a harsh and non-compelling read. Mouse Nightshirt 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charizard/archive5&oldid=995949929"