Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Torchic/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 20:26, 7 May 2007.

[edit] Torchic

previous FAC and Featured article review

I beleive that all the problems have been fixed with Torchic. So I'm trying to Feature it again. Coby 14:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It was once A Featured Article, was delisted, and those minor problems I think have been fixed. Coby 17:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some niggles...
  • Per WP:LEAD's suggestions, the sentences Torchic is the first, and so far only starter pokémon of the fire-type not to have an active flame as part of their anatomy. (Charmander's tail, Cyndaquil back, and Chimchar's back all have active flames protruding from their body.) It isn't until Torchic reaches its final evolution, Blaziken, that Torchic is given the privilege of fire sprouting out off its body. And even then, Blaziken does not keep its flame running eternally and, unike the other Pokemon, has control over it., which are not covered in the main text, should be moved the the (horrifyingly named) Biological characteristics where the suignificance (if any) of this trivia can be explained. Also some of this information is on a related Pokemon, not the one in question. Perhaps appropriate for the article but not the lead which is supposed to focus on Torchic.
  • The lead in general veers between an introduction providing information not avaliable in the article and a summary of the article.
  • Footnote 38 is empty.
  • Is there really really no information on development or critical reception? These are real world measures of impact and significance that would greatly benefit the article. This is supposed to be one of the better known Pokemon, right?
I am interested to see the replies to this before I cast an opinion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A further thought... the line chick, the common term for infant chickens. In my experience chick is the name for the young of any bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I still see Serebii in the citations section. What on Earth is wrong with citing the manga, episodes, and games directly?--Rmky87 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Object - not much appears to have changed since the FAR, and your dismissal of concerns that led eleven editors to elect to remove this article's featured status as "minor" makes me fear that you do not understand the problems with this article. Pagrashtak 23:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What? Lack of secondary reliable sources is not a minor problem, nor has it been fixed. Did I miss something? -Amarkov moo! 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The fair use rationales are a bit outdated and could be strengthened. I'd like to suggest that they are updated as such. --Iamunknown 04:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose—1a and 1c concerns on FAReview have not been addressed. Almost all articles can reach GA; only a handful can reach FA. This isn't one of them, it seems. — Deckiller 23:24, 30 April 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.