Wikipedia:Peer review/Bulbasaur/archive1

Bulbasaur[edit]

This article was the first completed drive of the Pokémon Collaborative Project and having worked on it myself, and worked on many related Pokémon articles - I can safely say this is one of the best around (and starting off as probably the second most notable to Pikachu). It fits to the Pokémon style guide (a guide used and aproved by the Pokémon Adoption Center). What I would like to find out (without sparking up the whole Pokémon debate) is whether a lay reader can understand this well enough and if they can't, what can be done to improve this. I would also like to find out if it passes muster for a possible featured article position or whether I'm barking up completely the wrong tree. Thank you. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 10:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That massive gap at the lead caused by the character box is rather annoying. Can't it be fitted like film articles? Smerk 14:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you meant the gap before the TOC, then that was caused by the Spoken article box - which has been relocated to the foot of the article so should be fixed. I can't see any other gap but that might be just me. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means this gap:

File:Thisgap.jpg

Other than that, maybe it's a good idea to include a screenshot of Bulbasaur from one of the games, preferably one of the earlier ones, in which Bulbasaur actually appears without Gamesharks and trades and stuff. -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that gap. Hmmm - I tried floating the TOC to the left but that didn't work out well - floating to the right looks silly. Is there anything you could recommend?

Good idea. I'll hunt one out now. Thanks for your comments! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 15:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a good article. Unfortunately, it'll get hammered on FAC for not having inline citations and (probably) for its length. The first one should be easy to fix; I'm not sure what you can do about the second. Promoted FA's have recently tended to 30K→100K in length; I'm not sure if a 10K article would make it. —Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What are inline citations? --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Citing sources for an exhaustive explanation. I personally prefer footnotes; but some form of them is usually insisted on during a FAC.

Length doesn't matter, it comes down to whether or not the article has a complete summary on the entire subject. If that fits in 5 paragraphs, that's fine. If that requires 20 paragraphs, then that's the way it's supposed to be. Judging articles solely by their length doesn't always do justice to their contents. -- SoothingR^(pour) 21:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly covers the whole subject - anything else I think would delve into subtrivial fancruft (for want of a better word). --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the Bulbasaur from the pokemon TCG has an advert on it. Best replace it. - Hahnchen 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 22:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this article with another one about a game character Goomba. The Bulbasaur article is a bit short. Maybe it needs very detailed description about its different attacks, its appearance in popular culture other than pokemon stuffs... Anyway, great article. CG 11:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - Goomba is huge. Well, I've added an "in popular culture" section (title needs renaming) and a couple of inline links.UI also did a little bit of expansion on the video game section. Any better? --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 11:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]