Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pokémon Channel/archive1
Pokémon Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]
Review section
editNominating the article for review as the article has a few conspicuous issues that this process may assist with:
- Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status.
- Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.
- Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels. VRXCES (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Vrxces. Unless I missed something, you have not yet brought these concerns up at Talk:Pokémon Channel. Per the instructions at the top of the page, talk page discussion is the first requisite step in this process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time. VRXCES (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciate your guidance - I've added this feedback on the talk page. VRXCES (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time. VRXCES (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Hold recommend that this FAR is place on hold while the notice period (step 1 above) is conducted. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Step 1 is now complete (with no response) so hold is off. VRXCES, could you please notify relevant editors and WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- The relevant WikiProject has been notified; I will also reach out to key editors when I can. VRXCES (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
FARC section
edit- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- The quote-citations of the game are pretty strange, but since the material would be fine even without citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, I'm not sure there's really an FAC criteria issue (although I'm not averse to just removing the citations). Comprehensiveness, on the other hand, is definitely a valid concern, but does anyone have a few examples of good sources that aren't currently being cited? The reason there's no development section may just be that the sources don't talk about it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delist No work has been done on the plot section, which should be reduced and all of the inline citations to quotes of the game should be removed. I searched for sources per Extraordinary Writ above and found one source, [1], but struggled to find others in my quick search. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I've just removed the quotes and trimmed down some of the plot. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The nomination rationale confuses me. Most of the errors in the article seem to be text-based (Which can be easily fixed per MOS:PLOT and some expansion on the gameplay section) and easily fixable, with the only real concern being the development section. Per Extraordinary Writ, if no additional sources can be found for the development, then it's very likely sources just don't talk about that aspect while talking about others. If more sources per Z1720's Polygon source are found, then those can be added to the article and used to expand the section. This FARC feels very forced when most of the issues could have been fixed with simple edits and research to the article by the nominator (Some of which have already been done by Sjones23). I'm willing to do a search for additional sources + adding anything found to the article if this works best, but as it stands the rationale for delisting this article is very weak and easily fixable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. This nomination was made when I had a weaker understanding of the FAR process under the misapprehension it was a vehicle to escalate quality issues on FAs. I think at this point the nomination can be comfortably closed. VRXCES (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has been three months. Why is this still open? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I have not been active in this time. Am I meant to close the review? I assumed the text "A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached." meant another party was meant to do this. VRXCES (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think an FAR coordinator is supposed to close it. One should hopefully close it soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - evidently from the nomination this was all a bit faulty but hopefully it can be sorted out. VRXCES (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think an FAR coordinator is supposed to close it. One should hopefully close it soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I have not been active in this time. Am I meant to close the review? I assumed the text "A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached." meant another party was meant to do this. VRXCES (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- It has been three months. Why is this still open? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. This nomination was made when I had a weaker understanding of the FAR process under the misapprehension it was a vehicle to escalate quality issues on FAs. I think at this point the nomination can be comfortably closed. VRXCES (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Concerns over the length and style of the plot section were addressed and searches for additional information and sources were completed. I found no issues. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The problems have been fixed. Cos (X + Z) 18:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)