Talk:Crawdaunt

Crawdaunt was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 20, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 19, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Stage-1 TCG card[edit]

I'm a little concerned about this sentence in the TCG section: "Most Crawdaunt cards are Stage-1 Pokémon cards, and are primarily used to play stronger cards (such as Stage-2 Pokémon, like Charizard)." First of all, isn't Crawdaunt always a Stage-1 card? More importantly, I'm afraid we're stating that Crawdaunt can be used to play a Stage-2 card, but Crawdaunt doesn't evolve. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon is correct, crawdaunt is always a stage one pokemon, i have 6 different types. And he is also right in saying crawdaunt cannot be used to get stage 2 pokes as it doesn't evolve.

Appearance/Biology[edit]

Should the last paragraph in the introduction be made into an Appearance/Biology section? I'd like to but I'm not sure if its a good idea... --Floramage! 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All it is is a description of Crawdaunt's appearance—to me, this doesn't seem broad enough for the introduction. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Origin[edit]

It should probably be noted that Crawdaunt's name sounds a lot like Commandant a rank in the US military, which fits nicely with Corphish possibly being derived from Corporal or Corps. Also, the combination of the star on his head, and the v-shaped stripes looks a lot like the medals given out in the military.

--Wikey 22:18, 16 November 2006

Improving article content[edit]

This is a proposal to remove some of the content that I believe is unnecessary to the Crawdaunt article. Addressing Vikrant's question, yes, I want this article to be a GA. I am not trying to prevent that.—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed sections] Since no one has replied and the article seems to be improving somewhat, I'm removing these sections. I will work on the article and try to explain my edits well enough in the edit summaries to justify my changes (and content pruning where it seems useful).—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 15:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass[edit]

I am very impressed with this article. I think it should soon be nominated for FA. Also...I actually put A class into the project templates because I think it is good enough for A class (better than GA). Funpika 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA/R[edit]

I've filed a Good Article review over this article, no comment on the talk page was given when this was article was immedietly delisted, and unlike Ivysaur and Charizard, this edit summary didn't even try to explain what the problems were or what should be improved. Homestarmy 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guide content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe[edit]

Although this article has one out of universe sentence in the beginning of the biological characteristics section, the rest is highly in-universe. Crawdaunt is fictional, and so is its biology, but the text doesn't really reflect this. -Malkinann 22:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]