Talk:Pokémon Heroes/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Eiga-Kevin2 (talk · contribs) 08:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reviewing this soon. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk - contribs) 08:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 My first impression upon reading this article is it isn't covering its subject broadly enough. I see very little written on the plot (which is 349 words and should be at least 400 per WP:FILMPLOT), production, cast, and crew (needs more on them in the infobox and lead section), and initial critical reviews. It also has no mention of the 2022 Pokémon Film Festival screening, which has its section on the Japanese Wikipedia's version of this article. I suggest you should try to expand your writing on these sections for starters. Will place it on hold in the meantime. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2 thank you for pointing out the Japanese article! I had actually looked into the Film Festival, but could not dig up sources on it in English or Japanese, so this is very helpful. I will note in a few areas:

-I can't dig up many sources on early reviews. The few I could find were very light and didn't say much, and the bulk of others are inaccessible to me. I searched in News, Books, and Scholar for this, and found little. Without knowing specific sites that did reviews back in the day, I doubt I'll be able to find more with ease, especially given internet reviews were significantly less common in the early 2000s.

Actually, you can expand on the Western critical reception using reviews sampled on Metacritic: https://www.metacritic.com/movie/pokemon-heroes/critic-reviews/. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-Production, cast, and crew have little to no sourcing existing. I could find nothing verifying them for either the Japanese or English versions, and little to no sourcing in either language. What's there is what I could find, and I did as in-depth a search as I was able to for this. This is about as comprehensive as it can get for the time being.

For the time being I've expanded the plot (Admittedly did a bit too much on trimming for conciseness initially, woops) and added the information on the Film Festival in Reception. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for sorting most of these out so soon, it looks much better. I did a bit of research to help you with the production, and found some reports on the "production announcement" in January 2002. [1] [2] Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2 I've added what information I could from those two sources. Incredible finds given their age! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Article fails the "broad" criterion due to lack of vital information on the movie's production history as well as foreign and domestic critical receptions that would satisfy a general audience. Casting and development should not just touch on the routine stuff, such as voice acting, writing and directing credits; it should also provide some background on the script development, the filmmakers' motivations in doing the film, date of production, the animation design, canonicity, et cetera. With regard to the reception, very little coverage is given to both Japanese and Western contemporary reviews, rather giving undue attention to retrospective reviews from English-language sources. Furthermore, prose is also problematic, with the lede suffering from length and paragraphing issues, and the infobox is missing much of the credits, e.g. the composer/s, producer/s, editor/s, color process, et cetera (see Template:Infobox film); however, you should be able to retrieve these from the Variety's review: https://web.archive.org/web/20240910124218/https://variety.com/2003/film/reviews/pokemon-heroes-latios-latias-1200541720/. Should be quickfailed to give the nominator ample time to work on the article, which is C-class at best. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have ample enough time with the week-long period given while an article is placed on hold, and I have more than enough time to do editing this week. I'll try to do an even more thorough search than I have done previously, but I will note that several aspects of development may not even be mentioned, or are mentioned in sources that are not readily obtainable. I do not see why these aspects not existing should be held against the article, given what matters for comprehensiveness and understanding of the film's notability are primarily reviews and other such demonstrations of it. If the film itself and later notability tied to it can be understood by the general audience, then I'd say it satisfies the comprehensiveness criteria. Development is also important, but if at least basic details can be verified (As they are now; I'll add the Variety source later today) it should be fine for audience understanding as to background. Regardless, I will see what other information I can add to this article to further its detail. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why these aspects not existing should be held against the article, given what matters for comprehensiveness and understanding of the film's notability are primarily reviews and other such demonstrations of it. This sense of complacency goes to show that we really have set the bar low for Good Articles. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the criterion you're citing, criterion 3 (Specifically a, in this case): "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."

Not every detail needs complete coverage so long as "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". The article covers the main aspects: It gives an overview of information in all the necessary areas, including by showing reception and impact, illustrating the film's box office and plot, and by giving an overview of what developmental details happen to exist. So long as it is sufficient enough to the point where readers will not be confused, then it is satisfactory, and I have done my best to make the prose understandable in all areas to avoid confusion. While these details you're listing are very helpful, they are not necessary for a complete understanding of the film and why it is important, and their lack of availability would not be detrimental to that understanding.

Your argument of the article not being in-depth enough is not specified in the GA criteria and is strictly a personal interpretation of how these criteria work. I doubt this can be considered "setting the bar low" when I have strictly followed the criterion used to judge hundreds of Good Articles before this one. I do agree to some of your points, such as a lack of retrospective reviews, for example, hence why I'll see if I cannot work to expand these areas, but these details do not require a complete article overhaul nor take so much time that a quick fail is preferable. I am curious about your issues with the lead; would you be willing to specify what prose alterations are necessary?

Either way, it's entirely up to the reviewer as to whether this should be quick-failed or not. I give my assurances that I will be able to address the necessary concerns that this article has within the allotted time, and I give my assurances that I have done my utmost best to make this article as in-depth and comprehensive as possible with what information is available to me. If the reviewer has any further concerns regarding the article that may justify a quick fail, then I will understand and likely re-nominate at a later point in the future, but I do believe in its current state that this article can and is currently meeting the GA criteria, as outlined on the criteria page, and that improvements to the article are more than feasible within the allotted time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry pal but this article requires a lot still to meet the criteria and the supposed lack of online sources seems to not help that. I think it'll be easier just to quick fail it instead of continuing this review like Nineteen Ninety-Four guy suggested. This article seems more at C-level and would need a lot to get it to even B-level for starters. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.