Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon Red and Blue/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:56, 28 October 2008 [1].

Pokémon Red and Blue edit

Nominator(s): Artichoker[talk]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It is currently a GA, and has gone through a peer review. After the demotion of Bulbasaur and Torchic more than a year ago, this would become the Pokémon Wikiproject's only featured article. I will try to respond to all concerns as quickly as possible. Artichoker[talk] 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Sorry but the article's sources are of woefully inadequate quality. So far I see only two sources that aren't entirely video game self promotional. In other words all of them but two make money by making these types of things look more important than they are. This makes it impossible to write a balanced and comprehensive article. WP:NPOV's undue weight provision cannot be properly satisfied if all of the sources are POV. And I spent some time checking on Google books and Google scholar just for a start and more mainstream treatment of the subject does exist, so there isn't an acceptable reason not to include it. Consider the Homer Simpson article as an example. It's not even a FA yet, but as a fictional topic it has far better sourcing than this has, and it should probably be improved as well. The best of FAs should be emulated, not the worst. I'm sure you can find other poorly sourced FAs but that doesn't make it a reason to promote another one. - Taxman Talk 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I'll try to add some "better" sources. I already got started [2]. Artichoker[talk] 15:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, GameFAQs can be used for release data, which is the only thing it is used to cite in this article. The second source is from IGN which is reliable. For the third source, this seems to indicate it is reliable. I have replaced ref 4. I have removed ref 5. Hooked Gamers is apparently down right now, but I have checked and it is reliable. Once it's back up I will check again though. I have fixed everything else. Artichoker[talk] 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for the IGN game guide, we don't know the author, and I'm not sure that just because IGN published it that it's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go through it again:
  • Oppose - lack of proper print sources on the subject, fails comprehensiveness. Layout is rather haphazard and messy. The plot doesn't fully cover the game. The images don't meet WP:NFCC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask you what is wrong with the layout, plot, and images? Artichoker[talk] 14:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The plot explains the premise, not the actual story arc, and has very little on actual setting (per general conventions, it would also be best to have it after gameplay.) The images need much more detailed fair use rationales; what's the justification for having two box art images in the infobox when one could do just as well? On a quick run-through there's some issues with liberties being taken with cited sources, as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick fail; more work is needed. Considering these are two of the most influential games of the 90s you would expect a good deal of print media, or non-GameSpot/IGN sources. The reception section is very undetailed and the gameplay sections especially need copyediting and polishing. Not ready yet, sorry. Giggy (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious that there's more work than I realized to be done, so I would like to withdraw this nomination. I guess I'll need to work on comprehensiveness mostly. Hopefully someday this can become featured. Until then, thanks for the suggestions, I'll get to work. Artichoker[talk] 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, closed. Please leave the {{facfailed}} template in place on the talk page until the bot comes through to add it to articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pokémon_Red_and_Blue/archive1&oldid=1078804860"