Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crawdaunt/archive1

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

[edit] Crawdaunt

A lot of work has been put into improving this article. The article shows all of the major aspects of the subject such as role in video games, anime, and Pokémon TCG. It has a lot of references in compliance with 1.(C) of the FA criteria. It appears to be stable right now. Funpika 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Many of the citations are incomplete, lacking access dates and such. Review {{cite web}}. Jay32183 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Task accomplished - The access dates of citations have been inserted. So there is no major flaw in the article now. It has a good flow, and per criteria, it is neutral, comprehensive and well written. It has no controversial content, so I hope it gets FA status. Vikrant Phadkay 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't like refs 17, 18, and 19. Why is a fan site being used when the episodes themselves could be cited. See {{cite episode}}, and don't be afraid of citing a work of fiction directly when just repeating something from its plot. Jay32183 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Additionally, I don't like ref 7, to strategywiki.org. Gameshark.com is a more reliable source. Jay32183 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Completed - the citation has been changed to a relevant page on [GameShark.com]. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Now, the cite episode template doesn't ask for all details. The Serebii citation describes the episodes properly.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Secondly, I see no flaw in StrategyWiki. Still, replacing the citation is most welcome if a relevant page on Gameshark.com is found, and further it won't affect this article any great extent.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What I meant to say is: Object, some of the sources you are using are unreliable fansites and user contribution sites that could easily be replaced by official sources. {{cite episode}} includes everything you would need for saying the information came from the episode, not all sources have to be websites. Wiki's are always unreliable as a source because they accept contributions from anyone. That's the reason Wikipedia can't be a source for Wikipedia. There are probably more refs that need replacement, but I'll need to review further. You can start with the changes I've suggested and I'll get back to you. Jay32183 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll do the {{cite episode}} templates later, if no one else wants to do it first. I'll also look through the rest of the citations ad see if there are any more that can be replaced with better ones. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you. Jay32183 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Former citation number 4 was entirely irrelevant, and has been removed. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
          • {{cite video game}} may also be a useful template for replacing unreliable sources in this article. Jay32183 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: the {{cite episode}}-needing ref numbers are now 14, 15, and 16 (after removing irrelevant references), if anyone wants to get to it before I do. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • They're in. I left the Serebii refs in as well - couldn't hurt, after all. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - The sections are complete. And the article has taken great leaps forward. It covers the scope well, has suitable images and has all that is required in a Pokémon article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - While it's without doubt a well-written article, by my view it's close to failing the 4th FA criterion (stays focused without going into unecessary detail) in the video games section: the examination of its types' strengths and weaknesses is a little lengthy (though not too bad), and the analysis of commonly taught moves, while very well written for what it is, isn't needed - a short mention of its potential versatility is probably sufficient. Once this is cleared up, I'm definitely in support of this nomination.

• I don't think an ideal article should have incomplete information. And just naming moves is too techincal for an encyclopedia. So, the unique movepool has been described as it minimises the Pokémon's drawbacks, and any special traits of a Pokemon are very much acceptable here.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In strong agreement with the game guide material listed in the video games section. I expect to see the likes of SD/AA in Smogon movesets, but not here As a point of comparison, Bulbasaur doesn't delve into that amount of detail, while Torchic does seeem to kind of veer off a bit deep. Hbdragon88 07:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing like a game guide here. The species' major advantages and disadvantages have been stated as briefly as possible(and I've still shortened it some time back), so that all diverting and unnecessary details stay in the cited source.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe only one example type for each part, like "types such as the Fire type"? And we can't just say "other types have no advantage or disadvantage", because not every relevant type is listed - I'll change that right now. And the attacks section reads like a (well-written) battle strategy guide - it's just too much info, and even though the listed moves are contained in the source, the in-depth descriptions of how they help are not. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - I think this article is as good as the other featured Pokémon articles! -- Sensenmann 15:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another Comment - I just noticed that there's no section on manga appearances. Is this because it never appeared in the manga, or did someone just forget to put it in? ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some research on this is needed. Funpika 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Done: The manga information has been noticed and has received its rightful place.

Vikrant Phadkay 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Is "Agree" the same as "Support"? Funpika 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article fails on several style and content issues.
  1. Not a single one of the references in reliable sources mentions Crawdaunt even in passing. It's mentioned (along with every single Pokémon) in a couple of referenced game guides and episode recaps, but this doesn't pass even the exceedingly low bar set in WP:FICT. (All of the references to IGN, Time Asia, etc. are generic articles on Pokémon as a whole, added to the article with a boilerplate template that is used in all Pokémon articles.)
  2. The biological characteristics section is still written in a totally in-universe style.
  3. The interpretation of the name's meaning/origin is totally original research.
  4. The game section is heavy with game-guide and original research material.

     For example: "Moreover, they can learn the uncommon move Swords Dance,[8] which raises their naturally high Attack statistic, and are usually taught attacks of other types such as Aerial Ace, Brick Break or Sludge Bomb.[9]" - The cited refs do not say Swords Dance is uncommon, which attacks are usually used, or even make much distinction between Sludge Bomb and Tackle.

  5. The rest of the article lacks entirely in analysis or interpretation. (This is a combination of WP:V and brilliant prose.) There's no substance in the references for this article to say anything other than "Crawdaunt appears in such and such game/anime episode/card set, and such-and-such happens in that primary source."

  I am aware that some of the previous Pokémon FAs suffer from these serious problems, and that some of them may be inactionable without merging this article to a parent article, and working on this as the minor aspect of a major subject that it is. Hopefully, my editing history will lay to rest the previous quagmires over "hating Pokémon" when people raised these objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sure you also wanted to mention that the article does not discuss the creation of or reaction to this fictional character/species using reliable sources. Don't want to leave anything out. Jay32183 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The TCG section doesn't need further information as it becomes too technical. Vikrant Phadkay 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• WITHDRAW: As I originally nominated this article for FA status, I would like to withdraw this nomination. I feel that some more work and a peer review is needed before another FA nomination. Funpika 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Make some of the changes suggested here before going to peer review. That way the peer reviewers know you're willing to make adjustments. Jay32183 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It will be improved based on the suggestions here then Peer Reviewed. I am still withdrawing this nomination. Funpika 23:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I can see that it was greatly improved and since this has yet to be archived I will keep my nomination going! Funpika 11:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support All the original research is no more there. I've improved the TCG section and added manga section, so no major content is left out now. Vikrant Phadkay 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't add new references to Serebii, I already questioned its use for episodes. {{comic book reference}} is perfectly acceptable for sourcing manga plots. Jay32183 18:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well-cited, writing seems to have improved in the past few days...a bit short, I guess, but hey...it's Crawdaunt. Phediuk 02:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Minor object Image:Crawdaunt tcg.jpg is a too high a resolution for fair use. It should be reduced to preferably no more than 400px high. ShadowHalo 08:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong object The video game bit is still far too detailed and is of no interest to a non-player. I would expect to see this attention of detail on Smogon or something, not on Wikipedia. Also object to use of fan sites (Serebii, PsyPokes) until the PCP comes to a consensus on them (as well as seeing as the Torchic FAR plays out). Hbdragon88 07:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I will work on that problem. Also Torchic will most likely revoked of FA status. Last I checked the last edits since it was nominated were just vandalism and reverting vandalism. Funpika 11:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I firmly oppose what Hbdragon88 has stated above. I don't understand what kind of opinion this is.
  • The details in the games section would have been unnecessary, and too technical otherwise. But what is the grudge against explaining a move that boosts Crawdaunt's already excellent Attack? And what is so, against two moves that eliminate five loopholes! Such rare, crucial and special facts cannot be ignored. The explanation of type strengths and weaknesses is quite proper now.
  • Now, a word about this world we share - This is an encyclopedia, not a fanclub or community site etc. So, whether or not an article proceeds towards perfection, its contributors are never expected to think about the interest of readers. Otherwise we would had less than half as many FAs as we do right now. The ideal article must no exclude anything important and Crawdaunt doesn't.
  • Next, is Reliability of Sources - a long and tiring journey indeed. But long doesn't mean its existence should be questioned. The Internet has 1 billion web pages and none of them is 100% reliable; they are all 99.99999999.......% and we'll never get another Pokemon FA if we can't rely on them. We'd rather be bound to lose the current two. Still those who don't rely can glide across Google and locate and compare many more sites. Or best is to play the game and clarify all the so-called doubts.
  • Finally, I have a request for Hbdragon88: Please do not spark off such opinions as they are very harmful for all Pokemon articles and the project too, on the long run

• Revelation Could it be that this nomination is being opposed after so much effort, just because the topic is of less importance? Maybe. But all those who oppose must know that importance of the topic cannot hinder the progress of the article Vikrant Phadkay 11:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - By this logic, we should just go ahead and declare every pokemon article to be an FA. After all, anyone can just go to some other site or play the games/watch the anime to get any information missing or unsourced. Saying that sections of this article are too detailed and that some of the sources are not reliable enough is not "very harmful for all Pokemon articles and the project". Saying that all details should be included because they are "special" and that reliable sources aren't needed because no source is absolutely perfect is what is harmful to the project, and is why Torchic is going to be de-featured. --PresN 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment ROFL, I'm curious to know if you actually know that I am a PCP editor or not. Of course, I tend to skave away from the individual species articles as a whole, mostly concentrating on the games themselves, so I'm not very finely tuned to the mechanics of the species articles. All I know is that the use of Serebii is in chaos now, and if Torchic gets docked for using Serebii, Crawdaunt shouldn't be raised to FA because it also uses Serebii. Quite frankly, compared to Bulbasaur or Torchic, the game section is still way too detailed. Notice how Jay, AMIB, and eotd have expressed similar sentiments about the same things. Hbdragon88 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the nomination is being opposed because the writing is less than brilliant, because the article isn't comprehensive, and the sources aren't very good. You realize that Hdb88 and myself are longtime members of the Pokémon Wikiproject, right? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the video game section being too game-guidish and too many non-reliable sources used. --PresN 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.