Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur/archive1

Bulbasaur

Summary

Objections:

Synthesising the various comments, the main objections are:

• verifiability: The references are too thin, either not sufficiently authoritative, or not sufficiently verifying the contents
• comprehensiveness: Elements, such as merchandise sales figures, design history and cultural impact, are missing.
• comprehensiveness: Insufficient context for the subject matter is provided, requiring previous familiarity with related subject matter in order to understand the article.

Examples indicative of these general objections include:

• Temporary account -
  • Bulbasaur is a fan page that try to read professional.
  • Nothing important is said about this fictional character: no "making of", no cultural impact.
  • Use of Time/CNN as sources are dubious at best, pointing to the whole Pokemon franchise, not specficially Bulbasaur. And many references are taken out of context. All other sources are fan webpages, not considered proper for FA.
  • This article is just all plot summary (in anime and in game section) and product information (in other media section). In another words, things only fans would care. Plot summary is clearly not enough for FA.
• BlueShirts - [absence of] "issue name and number as evidence of claims supported in the article"
• Tsavage - "the references as a whole don't hold up to even mild scrutiny"; "In summary, NONE of the references really hold up, individually or taken together, when attempting to verify the article"
• Andrew Levine -
  • "based on what Tsavage and Temporary Account have said. This is basically a fan-page gussied up to look like a FA with the help of some trumped-up citations"
  • "I would like to see information including: ... sales information on Bulbasaur-specific merchandise ... how the character (as appearing in the animé, the card game, etc.) was created ... Bulbasaur's individual cultural impact, separate from the rest of the Pokémon franchise ... quality in the prose"
• Spangineer - "referencing is weak"
• Tuf-Kat - "referencing is insufficient"
• Doug Bell - "I could object simply based on what Temporary Account and Tsavage" [but also] "many unexplained terms"; "lacking any "big picture" description of Bulbasaur"
• Gnangarra - "no information about Bulbasaur's designer(s), no creation elements for the character, no evolutionary drawings"; compare Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse

Participation:

Support: 32 - includes 8 "strong support", 2 reluctant or weak supports, 9 without criteria-based reasoning (e.g. "Well done", "for the third time", "has become fabulous", including 3 without any comment), 1 Pokésupport

Object: 8

The total of participants, and particularly the total of supporters, is at least 200-300% higher than average FAC participation.

Notes:

I have attempted to summarise the support and the objections above. Please feel free to amend if you think I have taken your comments out of context (I have tried not to), added in irrelevant material, or missed an important element of objection out. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for comments so far. I have refactored again - please try to keep this as short as possible -- ALoan (Talk) 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this set up with a numerical summary of supporters and objectors? Once valid objections are established, it would seem to be more to the point of the process to summarize the substance of the objections, and then maybe note if there was only a single objector. This isn't a vote. If we're looking for guidance from voting stats, we should also show average voting totals, for, say, the last X (a month's worth? two?) of candidates, since there is an obviously disproportionately large number of supporters for this single FAC. But again, I don't know why those figures are summarized. (I've edited accordingly, to better reflect the FAC process.) --Tsavage 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note that none of the objections are addressed. Temporary account 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

Right, after the previous, special edition 2-disk FAC (1, 2) and 2 peer reviews (1, 2), I have decided to renominate it. Since the FACs, it has had a full, comprehensive rewrite and I have asked people who hate Pokémon/aren't Pokémon fans to review it and they have said (after some alterations) that they fully understand everything it says. It is well referenced and I believe the prose to be brilliant. Without wanting to violate WP:BEANS, I can't think of anything else I could do to improve it. If there is anything that you can see and I can't, I'd be more than happy to rectify it but I don't want this to be a debate about whether we want Pokémon on the main page, the precident it will set for the rest of the Pokémon creature articles or the general notability of Pokémon creatures generally. Please keep this directly on-task to the article and whether it meets the criteria for featured status. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I was against this article previously, feeling that it didn't focus on Bulbasaur as a fictional character enough, and was too focused on how Bulbasaur was portrayed... but now this looks good. Notability is established, details are given in terms of fictionality as opposed to suspension-of-disbelief, it looks pretty comprehensive, follows guidelines, is referenced... I think this works as a FA. Since the subject came up frequently last time: to future voters/reviewers- "Subject matter" is not a criteria of featured articles. Any article that is notable enough to exist on WP in the first place, is notable enough to be featured if well written and comprehensive etc. I say that this article is. Fieari 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I did not vote the last time this article was up for FA status, as I was unsure if the article deserved a full support vote. I was very close to supporting the last time, and now after reading the revised article, I can with confidence vote support. KnowledgeOfSelf 17:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, for the third time. The revised version of the article is, by comparison, far better than the previous one. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The article reads well, even for someone like me who doesnt understand pokemon in the least. Banez 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support for the third time. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, since this time it's been well improved since the last time we've done the FAC votes. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 20:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Feels like I'm supporting a whole new article. Marvelous. RyanGerbil10 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - There is absolutely nothing bad to be said about it now. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - This puts the old article (and every other pokemon article) to shame. Dee man45 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I'm not sure what would constitute "trumped up" citations, short of them being completely fabricated (which, as far as I could see, they're not) considering the article is about a fictional character. It's not like there's a huge POV dispute here. Major improvements make this a worthy article (while the earlier incarnations were not). -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 10:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support An excellent article with detailed information. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Neutral I will remain neutral due to my having an article up for FA consideration, but I just wanted to point something out regarding the article. I personally think the writing is very stilted and, in the first few paragraphs at least (I admit, I haven't read the article in its entirety), uses incorrect punctuation and word usage. For example: I believe the use of the word iterations is incorrect. Perhaps British usage is different, but according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the word means 1 : the action or a process of iterating or repeating: as a : a procedure in which repetition of a sequence of operations yields results successively closer to a desired result b : the repetition of a sequence of computer instructions a specified number of times or until a condition is met 2 : one execution of a sequence of operations or instructions in an iteration

Then this quote: "Bulbasaur... is one of the 395 fictional species of Pokémon from the Pokémon franchise - a series of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards and other media created by Satoshi Tajiri. Bulbasaur is one of the first Pokémon a player can have in the first Pokémon video games, Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue;" This is way too repetitive. It is not "brilliant" writing as per FAC requirements. Find another way to write this without repeating "Pokèmon" over and over. Also, replace the semicolon with a period/full stop.

Then this quote: "Bulbasaur is also a commonly appearing Pokémon in the Pokémon anime." No offense, but does the person who wrote this speak English as a native languange? You can only use the gerund (ing) form of the verb "to appear" when you are talking about something happening at this moment. Otherwise, this should read as "Bulbasaur commonly appears in Pokèmon anime."

Finally, this quote: "CNN refers to Bulbasaur and its later evolutions as “the Carmen Miranda of Pokémon figures”, due to the “increasingly exotic foliage on its head” as it evolves and according to Time magazine, Bulbasaur was considered one of the “lead critters” in the original series." This is a run-on sentence. It needs to be broken into two or three different sentences. I don't have the time now to give more examples. Regards, --Jayzel 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do speak English natively and I don't like the insinuation otherwise. To you're specific examples:

1. Use of "appearing" - I'll fix that.
2. Use of "iterations" - what do you suggest I replace it with? I, personally, would use it like this but obviously this is technically inaccurate.
3. Repetition of "Pokemon" - Okay, I'll go and fix that too
4. CNN/Time - I'll fix this too.

Thanks for informing me. Regards, --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry if I offended. I'm an English teacher, so I can be anal at times. I like the way the paragraph re: iterations has been re-worded. Regarding the repetition of the word "Pokèmon", try using "characters", "franchise", "game", or even "they" and "it", etc., as replacements. --Jayzel 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the problems I had with the opening paragraphs myself and changed my vote to support. The arguments of some regarding sourcing are invalid, in my opinion. We are not dealing with a controversial subject that needs every sentence cited. Regards, --Jayzel 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to copyedit - that is what a wiki is about! And don't hold back with a vote just because you have another article on FAC.

On your specific points (i) I think you can "iterations" in that sense - i.e. the repeated instantiations of Bulbasaur the Pokemon universe - but perhaps another word would be better; (ii) The word "Pokemon" is bound to appear a few times in an article on a Pokemon, no? Which repetitions would you remove? And what is wrong with a semicolon? (iii) No offence, but why do you think "appearing" can only mean something happening at the moment? But anyway, perhaps "recurring" would be better? (iv) Well, I would remove the first comma, and add a semicolon before "and according to Time". Shrug. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to help out with copyediting, but at the moment I do not have the time. I have my regular job and family life in addition to projects here I am working on. Regarding semicolons: They are only used as a replacement for the word "and" in lists. That is their only function. Regards, --Jayzel 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Busy: aren't we all; semicolon is not quite so prescriptive. (The "colon: Capital letter" usage looks jarring to my eyes, btw.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to step in here to come to the aid of the semicolon. That's not the only function of a semicolon, Jayzel. In fact, what you state is not a valid use of the semicolon at all! How about joining independent clauses without a conjunction? Delimiting a list when the individual entries contain commas? You can't use a semicolon as a replacement for the word and in a list as you claim. Consider the sentence I like cake, pie, ; cookies, where I've replaced the word and in a list with a semicolon, which results in a ridiculous sentence. My apologies for the English diversion, please continue with the lengthy process. Pagrashtak 19:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there you use the seria comma and that it wrong. Without the comma before the conjection, it would look like: I like peas; beans; cheese which is still wrong. A semicolon only separateslist entries with commas like:

I like chips, eggs and beans; peas, carrots and parsley sauce; icecream and mashed potato

Which would be right. Sorry for this tangent - do get on with reviewing the article ;). --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you replying to me, Celestian? Because you're saying the same thing I am. Pagrashtak 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support, good article. Excellent content. Even though I'm not a Pokemon fan, and don't know much about Pokemon, I understand the article very well. --Terence Ong 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Pokésupport. Esteffect 16:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. Ok, lol. Do I sense any sarcasm? Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - WindFish 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Super Sunday support. I'm amazed at how well-written and referenced this article is. I've never been a fan of Pokémon, but I certainly learned something once I completed reading this article. The nominator deserves a barn star (or whatever they're called)! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. Is anyone going to give a superdoper super sunday support next? Temporary account 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps! —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. per above. Staxringold 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This article has become fabulous thanks to the work of the PCP! Highway 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Promotion I have to say it is much improved...nice job.--MONGO 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Having been been one of the dissidents last time around, i see no reason why i should not support it now. It is a better article. Thethinredline 08:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, grudgingly support. I friggin' hate the fact that there are articles about individual Pokemon characters on Wikipedia. I think it would be a sad day for Wikipedia if such an idiotically trivial article is ever featured on the main page. But I have to admit that it's informative enough, sourced (although the lead photo needs a fair use rationale), and reasonably decent all around. God forgive me for supporting this. Kafziel 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's far and away the most creative support I've seen in my long three-four months on FAC. "Super Sunday support" doesn't hold a candle to it... :) --Tsavage 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well how sad for me then. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I hate these idiotic commercial imps. I despise their fans who mistake this website for their playground. I do doubt my senses because of this, but grudgingly, annoyedly, head-against-the-wall-bangingly support. A small step for an article, a giant leap for this once-noble venture - towards a Teletubbiepedia the mere thought of which makes me blush with shame. Kosebamse 20:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (Sorry Kafziel for the apparent plagiarism, but I ashamedly admit I've already been pondering this step for a while.)
• Support This page has just steadily become better and better. I've held off on supporting until now, but the page really does look FA-quality now. The level of information has reached FA quality; the only thing that could hold it back is the prose (not really brilliant--then again, that's hardly actionable) and the weak introduction--do we need information from 2003? Really? Oh well. I support anyway, because the article has good pictures, references, information, and more. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Now that the article has had a substantial rewrite as part of this process, I truly think it deserves FA status. Anyone looking at this section needs to take most of the objections previous to this point with a grain of salt, as many have been addressed (although their original poster has refused to strike any text.) That said, I see any continuing criticisms of the references to be quite silly. As this is an article about a video game character, (A video game I despise mind you) it is niether logical or reasonable to expect references that come from a peer reviewed journal or the like. The references cited are perfectly adequate and truthful and I find the accusations of "padding" to be not Assuming Good Faith. As to the subject matter, like it or not, this is a cultural phenomenon, even if it is not your particular culture. This warrants an article, and this article warrants FA status. I only wish other articles of this type were so well written. pschemp | talk 04:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you think the references are valid then just say so. Please do not mock anybody who wishes to comment on the quality of the references used to write the article. --maclean25 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm...not sure what to say to that except that I was merely stating that I found the continuing criticism of the references illogical. Not sure where the mocking comes in. pschemp | talk 13:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support; merely being fictional doesn't make it any less reasonable an FA. It is stable (can't find any vandalism since May 2005), well-written (phrasing seems clear, especially considering it deals with a reasonably esoteric subject) and interesting. The lack of any non-fair use images is slightly annoying, but something like a Pokémon would probably have no free alternatives available. I'd judge this too be as good as Wario, a similar, featured, article. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I was in favour of Bulbasaur becoming a FA before, I spent just over an hour trying to find something to be picky over with it and couldn't. --Alf ^melmac 08:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yes its an article about a fictional character (pokemon at that) but its a very good one. It clearly meets the requirements for FA status; it seems to me that some people want this article to be the unattainable perfect article before they'll give it any credit. --Lewis 17:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support An excellent article - kudos to all those who invested their time into making it shine. Nicolasdz 10:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, if anything else, to get it off of the Featured article candidates page. This thing has gone through, I think, two peer reviews, been the focus of an entire active wikiproject for over a month, and has been nominated and improved upon three times. If this thing can't get FA status after all that, it just proves that there are articles out there that no matter the amount of work put into them, will never be able to become FAs. If that's true, then what is the point of even trying to improve upon those types of articles?--Rayc 16:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Object

• Object This article still reads like a fan page but with more mature and professional language. Example: "Bulbasaur cannot speak and are only able to communicate by repeating syllables of their species name ("bulb", "bulba", "saur") using different pitch, tone and body language to convey moods" sounds inflating, especially the words "pitch," "tone," "body language." This is basically saying that the creature cannot speak, but people still understands him (the links of those words seem unnecessary in my opinion). What's different "tones" of his speach? Any examples? Unlike wolf howls or bird chirping to mark their territory, I think there's nothing distinct, special, and important about the way Bulbasuar speaks. This is just one example of inflating this Bulbasaur to make the article seem more professional; there are many other examples if you read closely. I think if you take away these extraneous language (often unfounded and withour source), and look just at the bones, this article is just a game/fan/stat page, which many others have already pointed out before. Temporary account 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you name any unfounded, unsourced statements? I would think "tones" should be self-explanatory. How is the description of the sounds they make "inflating"? I don't actually understand this objection... Fieari 22:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll give more examples if I have time. But now regarding the "tone": I watched Pokemon, and it seems to me that there is really not much to elaborate or add about the communication between the trainers and the creatures. Are there any meaning to Bulbasaur's use of pitch or tone when it shouts "bulba" or "saur?" Does high tone or low pitch or high pitch with low tone mean anything? If you think so, cite the episode number and instances. I can't think of any. Also, do you have any reference as to Bulbasaur is a reptile? For all I care, it can be thought as a mammal, or a plant for that matter. Where is your source? Also, I think the article is still geared to people who already know what Pokemon's about, since without playing the game, a reader is not going to understand what is attack points, levels, classes of Pokemon...etc. Temporary account 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

      I'm going to nip the "non-fan" bit in the bud. I asked 3 non-fans who know nothing about Pokémon and they understood everything that I said in the article. So that is totally untrue. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

      • comment. I have basic knowledge of Pokemon having watched the anime and played the game (on GB only), but really, I don't think the article is geared to Pokemon amateurs. As previously mentioned, a person with no knowledge of Pokemon is not going to understand what's attack points, levels, transformation...etc of Pokemon, and this article treats these topic casually as if everyone knows them already. Don't you agree. The people you asked probably have general knowledge about how a turn-based strategy game works, but imagine asking your grandfather to read the article, I don't think they will know about the levels...etc.Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I did ask my Grandfather actually and although he didn't understand the point of me reading it to him (I tried to explain FAs but he wasn't having any of it ;) ) and he also understood, on the whole, everything I said. Non-fans can understand it. Even people have never used a computer can so just admit defeat on this point - near-enough everyone can understand it. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And another comment, I don't think you can write a FA article just based on Bulbasaur. Not that Bulbasaur is a worthless subject to write about, just that there are not that much important information about this creature. If you substitute Bulbasaur with any other pokemon, and write about their game roles, TV appearances, stories...etc, it is just another same article, don't you agree? Temporary account 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I don't agree, and I don't think this objection is actionable. This article is specific to Bulbasaur, and replacing it with another Pokemon would change the article substantially. The particular example you have called out is unactionable at best. I too have watched Pokemon, and the tones Bulbasaur uses for speaking are fairly straightforward- low tones for sad situations, higher tones for happiness and situations of stress. However, such details uncalled for and may even be original research. Asking for specific citations of episodes and instances would detract significantly from the quality and readability of the article, adding large amounts of trivial and technical data which the casual reader has no use for. As Pokemon articles stand, this one is unique, comprehensive, and meets all FA criteria.RyanGerbil10 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Think about this: ALL the sources cited here mention Bulbasaur, but invariably also mentions other well-known Pokemon such as Squirtle or Jigglypuff (ex. CNN and Time). Thus in theory you can also write and submit these other Pokemon for FAs as well. Anyways, back to Bulbasaur. Temporary account 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

        Yes, I agree with this interpretation. We are discussing this article - not others. This is comprehensive, well-written (a subjective criteria that many on this page alone agree with) and referenced (though possibly not fantastically: nonetheless, referenced), stable (no edit wars) and neutral. It meets all of the criteria. Length is not a criteria and objections based on this are not relevant. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

        • comment. I think a lot of people will disagree about if it's clear written or not, or clearly sourced for that matter. See above and below, please make it better if you can instead of defending your previous assertions. Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Every claim you make in a FA needs to be sourced. If you treat Bulbasaur like a animal species (which this article does), and mentions it uses its tone to communicate, the readers will need examples. Also, who says Bulbasaur is a reptilian, and is taxonomy really important for a Pokemon? Essentially, this article is composed of: introduction, appearance in game, appearance in anime. Do you really think this warrants a FA? All the prose reads like taken from any fan-page or anime summaries. Almost all the sources are game guide books, anime books, or TV guides, which are hardly considered appropriate sources at all. The guidelines for FAs are pretty short and nonspecific. It says an article must have verifiable sources and written as...etc. Surely this Bulbasaur has sources, but are they any good? If you have any Pokemon biases or any biases at all, throw them away and just read this article and compare with other FAs. Think about it. Temporary account 00:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I disagree that this article treats Bulbasaur like an animal species. It used to... which is why I objected to it previously, but it's been changed to emphasize the fictional aspect, and provides a discussion of the character as a fictional character. Compare your objections to other current Featured Articles, particularly Captain Marvel (DC Comics), which is often hailed as a prime example of everything an article on a fictional character should be. It talks about where the character appears, features of the character, references to the character... a lot of the aspects of the Captain Marvel article can't actually be reproduced in the Bulbasaur article, such as influences, since that information has never been published. But you'll see that the tone of the Captain Marvel article and the tone of the Bulbasaur article are similar. They both try to include the same sorts of information, and in the same way. Fieari 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

            Again, I agree with this. It does not focus on the creature as an animal species. The reference to reptillian was aimed at allowing readers not familliar with Pokémon to understand the information. An image of a reptile is easier to comprehend than an animal made entirely of plants. Making paralels with the real world is essential for improving readabnility. Anyway, I changed it to "reptillian-looking", happy now? --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

            • Somebody raised this question in the last FAC, but it's not addressed yet: any source citing bulbasaur is actually a portmanteau of "bulb" and "saur." Temporary account 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

            • Comment. Ok fine, but it's still hand-waving at best. Maybe add that Bulbasaur is a mammal based on what user BlueShirts said? I think his claim is equally supportable. Why not just add that it is a genetic hybrid between plant and mammal? Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Exactly my point. What I wrote a couple paragraphs before is that "And another comment, I don't think you can write a FA article just based on Bulbasaur. Not that Bulbasaur is a worthless subject to write about, just that there are not that much important information about this creature." See how much information a reader can get from reading Captian Marvel, and how little you learn about Bulbasaur in this FAC. If Pokemon is a FAC, maybe, but I don't think there is much to be said about Bulbasaur. Plus, you can easily shorten the article if you take out extraneous wordings or minor details about Bulbsaur's appearances...etc. Even though Captain Marvel and Bulbasaur are both fictional characters, one has rich history (in real life and also in comic books), but the other one doesn't. I think this is very clear, and no spin here. Temporary account 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

              • Tell me the pointless wordings and I'll remove them. Nobody else seems to have this problem so it seems you're on your own - Bulbasaur is just as relevant a subject as Captain Marvel (who, incidentally, I'd never heard of). And as I've said many times before, length is not an FA criteria. Comprehensiveness is and this article is comprehensive. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

                • Comment. Wait a minute here, the FA rules cleary states on section 5 that the FA should be of appropriate length. Thus what you said about that length is not a criteria is just totally wrong. Temporary account 21:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

              • Comment. You reiterate my point. FA rules are pretty lax if you read them carefully; I agree with what others said, that a lot of articles will meet FA criteria, but not all will become FAs based on the problems that I am addressing here. Do you really think there is that much to say about Bulbasaur even if it's comprehensive, compare with other FAs. You can be write three paragraphs about a barren subject to be totally comprehensive would be an analogy. Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Of appropriate length means long enough to be comprehensive - there is no minimum or maximum length, so the criterion is about comprehensiveness and not length alone. Worldtraveller 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object Pretty much what temporary account says. Plus the article totally lacks inline notes (or just sources) for characteristics and anime sections, with one scant IGN source for the video game section. I mean, why not reference the pages for a myraid of pokemon books? And to me bulbasaur looks like some sort of proto-mammal by the way his legs extend directly down instead of sprawling out like most reptiles. It's got ears for god's sake. BlueShirts 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've added "reptillian-looking" as it is supposed to resemble a dinosaur, hence the name. As to the references, seeing as everyone likes comparing it to vcaptain marvel, where are the references for the "Fawcett years: the Marvel Family, allies, and enemies" section? Or "Shazam! The New Beginning"? Or "The Power of Shazam!"? Or "Captain Marvel in the 2000s" or "JSA membership (2003–2004)"? Or "Day of Vengeance"? Or "Other series"? Or "Character biography" (like the characteristics section of Bulbasaur)? Or "Powers"? Or "Supporting cast"? Or "Cultural influences"? Or "Appearances in film and television"? I agree with Rubne Welsh below - this is just a vendetta against Bulbasaur because it's a Pokémon. Raul will be able to see through all of this to the core fact of the matter that Bulbasaur is a great article, meeting all of the criteria that should be featured. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

These sections on captain marvel at least have the issue name and number as evidence of claims supported in the article. Can we have some specific episodes in which bulbasaur is significant? Itonly makes sense to have the season number and episode number to illustrate whatever you're trying to say, especially when adequate references are sorely lacking. BlueShirts 19:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object The nomination was promising, and I read the article with full attention. Unfortunately, it hasn't changed much: some rewriting, but the structure and content are substantially the same as in the previously submitted version. In light of the recent Talk page discussion about checking FAC references, I picked this FAC (partly because I'm quite familiar with it already) to see how much work it would take to check out...references. The results in this case are rather disappointing, to the point where I'd say the references as a whole don't hold up to even mild scrutiny. Here's what I found:
  • Bulbasaur CotW, pojo.com. - supports "The Bulbasaur card is considered "common" by collectors and generally can be found with relative ease. This is a plain text page on a fan site, a stats-style listing of Bulbasaur characteristics, with no apparent discussion of collectability.
    • Looking at this reference, it says, "Name:Bulbasaur, Type:Basic Pokemon, Card #:card 44 of 102, Rarity:Common. That certainly is a discussion of collectability. Just because the information is in list form rather than a text discussion makes it no less valid. pschemp | talk 05:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Approaching the surreal. First, how can I trust anything on a plain text page, with no author information, no title, no date, that begins: Hello again... Time for another CotW (and since I did Charmander and Squirtle...)... And what makes you think that "Rarity" refers to the card, not Bulbasaur's frequency amongst the hundreds of others of fictional species? Because it says "card #" right before? Isn't this a list of Bulbasaur stats, which notes as one of them its card number? Is the CARD color then green "green". Is the CARD weakness "R"? Is the CARD species "seed"? What is a CARD retreat of "1" mean...? Maybe it refers to the card, or to Bulbasaur, or to both Bulbasaur and the card...if they're not one and the same...or...????? The discussion here is "credible references". I don't doubt that Bulbasaur is a common card...I just CHECKED THE REFERENCE... --Tsavage 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC):
        • • Comment; the rarity value comes from the card itself. All cards are marked with a dot in the bottom right corner (visible on the card here), the shape of which indicates rarity (circle: common, diamond: rare, star: very rare). Therefore, it is an offical, verifiable comment. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Surreal? Lets see...the title of COTW stands for "card of the week", which is easily found out if you go to the main pojo.com site. So, this is definitely referring to the card and its rarity, it is not a list of stats and not "Bulbasaur's frequency amongst the hundreds of others of fictional species" as you suggest. This info can be found in the archives of that site, it is hardly a random text dump with no context as you suggest either. I have no previous experience with either this website, pokemon or even video games and this was clear to me. pschemp | talk 08:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again... 
Time for another CotW (and since I did Charmander and Squirtle...)...
Bulbasaur/Ivysaur/Venusaur
Name:         Bulbasaur  
Type:         Basic Pokemon
Card #:       card 44 of 102  
Rarity:       Common
Color:        Grass  
HP:           40 HP
Weakness:     R 
Resistance:   none 
Retreat:      1
Species:      Seed 
Level:        13
Pokemon #:    1
... 

• • Pokémon, Pashmina Hot in Britain, Mimitchi - supports "Bulbasaur and other Pokémon toys beat out Furby to become the most popular and most bought toy in the United Kingdom" Besides the dubious value of the entire assertion (limited scope, outdated reference to 1999), this use of the source material is questionable, if not an outright misrepresentation. The article is only an early pre-Christmas rush assessment of 1999 UK toy sales, which goes on to say that it is "based on sales to the end of November" and "'Pokemon is looking good, but the scenario changes everyday, so I'm making no predictions,' said spokesman Gerry Masters."
    • This reference is not currently being used. pschemp | talk 07:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Pokémon banished from another playground, CNN (5-Oct-1999) and PokéMania, Time Asia (22-Nov-1999) - supports comparison with "Carmen Miranda" and that Bulbasaur is a "lead critter" in Pokemon. The apparent importance--Time says! CNN says!, particularly by positioning the material in the first paragraph of the lead--seems quite exaggerated when the sources are examined. In the first instance, the CNN Miranda remark was a minor bit of editorial color, part of a description of three Pokemon characters, and the only mention of Bulbasaur in the 900 word article: As any good "Pokédex" on the Web can tell you, some of the lead critters are: Pikachu, the popular favorite, an "electric" Pokémon all yellow and cuddly; Jigglypuff, classed as a "normal" Pokémon who appears to be a large lilac head with cat ears and feet, little more; and Bulbasaur, a "grass/poison" type Pokémon who evolves into Ivysaur and Venusaur, each with increasingly exotic foliage on its head -- perhaps the Carmen Mirandas of Pokémon figures. The Time aricle also mentions Bulbasaur briefly, one mention with other characters in a 3,750 word in-depth Pokemon article: For example, of the three more popular Pokémon, Hitokage, a salamander with a ball of fire on its tail, became Charmander; Fushigidane, a dinosaur with a green garlic bulb on its back, became Bulbasaur; and Zenigame... Also, "lead critters" comes from CNN not Time, as represented in the article.
  • NOTE: The non-website material is c. 1999 (one book. "Perfect Guide", is out of print), and this is not explained - Why are the references all from the period when Pokemon was first blowing up worldwide, yet there is no timeline context in the article? Has Bulbasaur vanished from the media in recent years (six years being nearly forever in the digital/gamiing world)?
    • I don't understand this note. Even if Bulbasaur has not been as popular as it once was, that doesn't make it non-notable or the references invalid. This is not a current events article. pschemp | talk 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Guides:Super Smash Bros. Melee, IGN.com - supports "Bulbasaur also appears as a trophy in Super Smash Bros. Melee...". IGN is a major gaming site owned by Fox; perhaps their content is to be reasonably trusted. However, it seems curious to cite an arbitrary second-hand review source (one of number of big game sites) to support product info about another game title. Either no citation is required, or the Nintendo game guide or other official publication would be a more appropriate source (citation padding by including any random source handy that has the desired content is not helpful).
    • On the contrary, I think this reference, not being from the usual or "official nintendo" source shows that Bulbasoaur is indeed a large enough phenomnon that it has been copied as Nintendo history into another game. At the very least it supports the factual claim of the sentence, which is exactly what a reference should do. pschemp | talk 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Essentially this reference is a secondary or even a tertiary source when you examine it closely. Basically, you can just go buy the game and use the game manual as a source, and in this case, it will become a primary source. So I don't really understand why IGN was used; if you have a primary source, why not use it (even though it would still be hard to cite a game manual using MLA style)? This IGN reference only reiterates what's known from the game manual. Unless there's some effort to make Bulbasaur's appearance more important with respect to the article than it really is. Temporary account 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Bulbasaur’s Bad Day, Amazon'' and Pokémon Tales, Volume 3: Bulbasaur’s Trouble, Amazon - support the brief summaries of two children's books featuring Bulbasaur. In each case, the summaries here are rewordings of extremely brief (1-2 sentence) Amazon.com book summaries. I'm not sure why these are in References, linked to Amazon? As sources for the book summaries, Amazon with its 20 total words of source material each is...insubstantial. As evidence that the books do exist? Either way, it seems like citation padding. (When I say "citation padding", I mean that the source does not contribute to verfication or to further research: it adds no additional context and/or it is not "reasonably credible", like a textbook, published research paper, or whatever. The "padding" means that it appears on the Reference list, making the list longer, but in fact does not turn out to be a proper source.)
    • I don't think this is padding at all. Very few video game characters get anything near the things that can be found for Bulbasaur. This adds the context that the subject is notable enough fo a book. This is in no way dishonest as you imply. pschemp | talk 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There is padding going on. Consider this, FA should be like a high school or graduate paper with appropriateley cited sources. Now, these Amazon websites aiming to sell you merchandise is one thing, but they have very poorly documented information about what these books are about. To me citing Amazon is like citing someone posting their stuff to sell on Ebay. So why do you want to use them as sources? Temporary account 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • McDonalds’s Pokémon Series I & II, Rita’s Pokémon Store - supports coverage of a MacDonald's Pokemon card promotion in Japan. The stated name of the site, which seems to be a fan site/online store, cannot be found on the linked page, nor on the site Home page (which says "JawaAtLarge's Neofriends Page"). Author and/or source of the article are not given, nor is it dated. Was it written there, or copied from elsewhere? Basically, this reference appears to be a paragraph of entirely unattributed text plucked out of cyberspace.
    • This link looks like its been abandonded in favor of neopets, so I found another and substituted it. pschemp | talk 06:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm in the inner circle. The Guardian - supports In a Guardian Newspaper satire about Ken Livingstone Mayor of London, the writer references Bulbasaur as one of the Pokémon Ken wants to trade. A questionable use of the source, and its purpose in the article is unclear: to establish "notability"? As trivia? The source article is parodies a London, UK city council meeting, where instead of proceeding, the Mayor and others sidetrack into a Pokemon trading session. Bulbasaur is mentioned only once, along with other Pokemon, in a much longer Pokemon riff. The entire Bulbasaur mention is: "But before I kick off the meeting proper," said Ken, unloosing the belt on his safari-suit, "may I just ask anyone who has a Bulbasaur worth 40HP or a Charmander worth 50HP to tell me at once, because I am in a position to arrange a swap with a Geodude, also worth 50HP, and a Diglett, admittedly worth only 30HP but with a resistance factor of 30. Any takers?", in an 850 word column. The article is not about Bulbasaur, the mention is about Pokemon, not particularly Bulbasaur, and it's not even clear whether Pokemon is used for a reason, or whether any "playing at business" activity could have served the same purpose. In any case, a stretch.

I really can't understand why you think this reference "[doesn't] hold up to even mild scrutiny". The section is about Bulbasaur "In other media" (i.e. outside the video game and anime). The citation verifies that Bulbasaur was referred to a satirical article in one of the most important newspapers in the UK in 2000 (and it happens to be the first Pokemon mentioned). The summary in the article is 100% spot on: how can you say taht "NONE of the references really hold up, individually or taken together, when attempting to verify the article"? This sentence is 100% accurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

ALoan: With all due respect, this seems to have really gotten under your skin. You've picked one reference, and launched an attack (in the mildest sense of the word) on my entire references review. You quote me out of context -- "the references as a whole don't hold up to even mild scrutiny" -- I didn't say THIS reference didn't hold up to even mild scrutiny, I said, as a whole, the average impression after checking them ALL. In a CLOSING COMMENT, after presumably the reviews were read, I did say that even individually they "don't really hold up" (the "really" is an intentional modifier, as in, with some variation, I can't believe all common nuance needs to be explained), and presented my opinion. To the real issue: "In other media" is an ill-defined section: the first sentence of the lead identifies Bulbasaur as part of "the Pokémon franchise – a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards and other media". The article looks at VGs and anime, and then lumps the rest into "other media". Presumably, then, the one single newspaper reference is of some particular importance here, and that's reinforced by a citation (referencing is, as far as I understand it, not simply a way to prove that every statement isn't made up by the author, it is to provide the context in which the article's synthesis is based, and it generally indicates some added importance). Here, emphasis was put on this Guardian mention simply by including it alone (was Bulbasuar never otherwise mentioned in print?), when in fact, checking the source, Bulbasaur is almost entirely incidental, many Pokemon were named, and I can't see how replacing Bulbasaur with any other Pokemon would have at all changed the Guardian piece. So, the "important" newspaper item proves by checking to be not at all Bulbasaur-specific, so hardly notable. The fact that the sentence in the article wasn't fabricated—yes, it was mentioned in the Guardian...—is not the point here, it's that the quality of the source. Else, let's just list sourcable mentions of anything and everything, and create mile-long references signifying nothing. Remember, I was evaluating REFERENCES... Looking at this from, say, the "compelling, even brilliant" writing angle, ending on that Guardian reference is ridiculous, it's a random, contextless bit of data, as presented, it is beyond trivial (subtrivial?): SO WHAT if Bulbasaur was mentioned in passing in one column in one newspaper...? Is this relevant to an encyclopedia article? Why? Once deleted, this reference would vanish. But, I was simply checking references... Is verifying the verifiability wrong? "Excessive"? --Tsavage 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tsavage, with respect, I was addressing your comments on this one reference - "A questionable use of the source, and its purpose in the article is unclear" - not on any of the others. The references are there to verify the text, and this one does. Whether the text should be there in the first place is another question entirely. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ALoan: Please correct me if I'm wrong. "Verification" requires two things: fact-checking and checking for accuracy. (I'm not attempting to lecture you or anyone else here, I'm certainly not "qualified" for that, but in the interests of this extended Bulbasaur review...) If X is quoted, "I like lawyers," and the source more fully reads, "I like lawyers only once they've left this mortal coil", the literal fact-checking part is satisfied, however, accuracy is clearly not (if the statement was simply, "X likes lawyers", obviously both fact and accuracy are wrong). All situations not being as black and white, if I say, "Bulbasaur has entered modern newspeak," and list three or four or 10 instances (in the text or only in the notes), Guardian satire being one, then this ref seems fine for fact and accuracy. But if I list one instance of "newspaper" in an "other media" section, even without a contextual explanation, the impression (no matter how well or poorly it may be conveyed in the actual text) is that there is SOME NOTABLE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE to this. Context does have its role in...communication, in encyclopedic writing. There is a degree of subjectivity involved here, naturally, but in terms of a review of References, and particularly where questions are being raised about every reference, my point here was simply that any contextually implied importance of this Guardian mention with regard to Bulbasaur specifically is not supported by the material. To extrapolate: IF a pattern indicating something like a keyword search for a topic, followed by incorporating every possible result directly and without regard for importance or context, had been done, that would be most notable when evaluating SOURCES. That was the full meaning--"this mention was of the most minor significance with regard to Bulbasaur"--which I imagine is clearly apparent to some without all this explanation. (At risk of putting myself further into a "ranter" category, I'm replying here because you seem to be a regualr reviewer and also involved in admin of Featured areas (lists?), and so, your practical definitions are perhaps influential on others...) Thank you. --Tsavage 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think the sentence you quoted is accurate and verified by the citation. End of story. The sentence does not say anything about hom many times Bulbasaur has appeared in newprint or how important the references are (although I think it is interesting that a serious newspaper includes a reference to a Pokemon, if only in a satirical piece). Anyway, I thought this article was good enough some time ago, and it has only got better since then. If you do a comparative analysis of our respective voting records, you may find that my standards are not as high as yours :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"End of story"? "Final reply" (History comment)? "My standards are lower than yours" (paraphrase)? Vaguely depressing stuff, but, whatever... --Tsavage 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did anybody read the Guardian article? To me this is just a trivia and not a really good source. So what if it's verifiable (personally I think it's not, it's just a parody). To me this seems like padding because Ken was not doing any endorsement of Pokemon at all. Unless if there's some celebrity or others endorsing this particular Pokemon, there's really no importance of tying a celebrity with a Pokemon through some obscure and tenuous link, as this citing this Guardian article is doing. And about standards, I think everyone should strive for the higher and be critical. Why would you want to be lax and blind? Temporary account 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Barbo, Maria. The Official Pokémon Handbook. 1999 and Loe, Casey, ed. Pokémon Special Pikachu Edition Official Perfect Guide. 1999 - These game guides are given as general references for the article. The 1999 date of both books raises again the question of timing of sources. These books were written, for one, in the 150 Pokemon universe, which later expanded to the 386 Pokemon world of today (according to this article). The use of possibly outdated sources is a concern. Has Pokemon/Bubasaur not changed or evolved, even as the "franchise" expanded and the number of characters more than doubled?
    • I happen to own the Official Pokemon Handbook referenced by this article, and I can say that the information presented in the article is a factual representation of the book. As for the criticism that the book is too old to be used as a reference, I do not see why it is valid. Bulbasaur has changed very little over the years in terms of appearance (I am not aware that it has changed at all) and description. Tsavage makes the point that the 1999 guide was written when only 150 Pokemon existed, which is true, and that now there are 386, meaing that the 1999 guide is no longer a valuable resource. Just because there are now more Pokemon does not mean that older sources existing for older Pokemon are now obsolete. This would be a valid argument if the book was cited for one of the 236 new Pokemon, but it is not. Other sources may need to be checked, but criticism of the 1999 Pokemon guide in unfounded in my opinion. RyanGerbil10 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Statistical analysis of Bulbasaur, Individual animé episode summaries, May's_Bulbasaur - listed as general references. By appearance, these are three fan sites that could be any of thousands. There is no evident reason to assume anything more authoritative or definitive from their material than, for example, using this article to reference itself.
  • Long list of links to to other WP articles, included at the beginning of the References section This is a little odd--can WP really self-reference?

In summary, NONE of the references really hold up, individually or taken together, when attempting to verify the article. --Tsavage 22:48, 23 February 2006 (EST)

• • • In summary, your outrageous claim that NONE of the reference hold up is perposterous. I have personally looked at all of them, and there has been no incorrect information, nor has article "padding" taken place. I am further disturbed by the people who have agreed with you below, as it appears they have not really taken the time to check the links individually as I have. pschemp | talk 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If you don't understand any of my comments, you could start with this: At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. - Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "References" aren't just pointing to anything that says the same thing you're saying in the article... --Tsavage 07:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Right. And since none of the citations are usenet posts, bbs, blogs or personal websites, your point is?pschemp | talk 08:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I think Tsavage really hits home regarding the issue. I looked through the sources as well, and really except for game books (which are not really quality sources at all), none of the sources are reliable, with their reports either inadequate or distorted. This indicates that there's an effort to do citation padding to make this article look more important and substantiated than it really is. With this in mind, I don't think the article is of FA quality with "only" game manuals or strategy guides as reliable sources. Temporary account 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Do the sources satisfy Wikipedia: Reliable Sources#Evaluating secondary sources and Wikipedia: Reliable Sources#Using online sources? --maclean25 07:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, references from 1999 are still very valid. Bulbasaur hasn't changed (at all, I don't think) since then. More have been added to the franchise but the original 150 are still the same as they always have been. What a silly objection. You're just searching for reasons to oppose when there aren't any to be found. Also, about the Guardian, the writer had 150 Pokémon to choose from, why choose Bulbasaur? Because it's the most famous. Also, on the subject of Amazon, I think we can trust it not to publish stuff about books that don't exist. References padding? That's tosh! What better proof can you get that the books exist? Also, CNN/Time. Thjis goes back to the Guardian thing - why choose Bulbasaur? Because it's one of the most well-known, popular and notable. Isn't it surprising that they all mention Bulbasaur, when none of the other Pokemon they menntion are the same? Why put it at the top of the article: It's all to do with telling the reader why they should read the article. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, and about the links to the WP articles on the games. These reference the games - information about stuff has been taken from there - like the plot ...etc... --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, based on what Tsavage and Temporary Account have said. This is basically a fan-page gussied up to look like a FA with the help of some trumped-up citations. Although in theory any article capable of passing AfD can become featured, the reality is that for subjects like Bulbasaur there is probably not enough information that can be added from credible sources and not enough that can be done to make it interesting to a general audience. Personally, I think that those who are intent on getting Bulbasaur up to featured quality would do better to focus their energies on promoting the main article Pokémon itself. Andrew Levine 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  How preposterous! We can work on this if we want. Every single article that can pass AfD can become featured. It meets all of the criteria (see the comment about this above) so should be featured! Fan page? Pah! It's the most encyclopedaic and comprehensive information about Bulbsaur anywhere on the internet! I've never seen a fan page looking like this one and I've seen some pretty terrible fanpages - have you? --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object; the referencing problems that Tsavage mentions are problematic, especially those relating to making statements not explicitly backed up the sources cited. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, I continue to hold the opinion that referencing is weak—I objected to the use of Amazon references in Celine Dion, and I'm doing it again here (not to mention Serebii and other fan sites, the not particularly forceful CNN quote, etc.). --Spangineer (háblame) 04:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object I have to agree that the referencing is insufficient. For example, there's not a single citation in the anime section. The bit about Livingstone is absurd -- if there's a reason why that's relevant, it's not clear from the rest of the article. As another example, the only cited fact in the video games section is Bulbasaur's appearance in Super Smash Brothers -- this begs the question of where the other 4.5 paragraphs in that section came from. Tuf-Kat 17:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  Well, currently the anime section is covered by the Seribii link but I can convert those to footnotes I guess. The video game section is covered by the games themselves in which Bulbasaur appears, also listed in the references. I can remove the Livingstone link if you like. --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  Right, try this on for size. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object I think I could object simply based on what Temporary Account and Tsavage have said. However, reading the article I also find many unexplained terms. Reading this as someone completely unfamiliar with Pokémon, the following terms and phrases were unlinked and unexplained in the context of the article:

• Pokémon breeder
• learn any damage-dealing Poison attacks naturally (both damage-dealing Poison attacks and learn naturally are unexplained and unreferenced)
• Grass/Poison-type (links to general type page, but there is no Grass/Poison type discussed on the page and no discussion of what it mean to have multiple types or how attacks are resolved in this case)
• Special Attack and Special Defense statistics
• standard Attack statistic
• evolve
• level
• learns moves
• advanced techniques and the power increase
• unavailable in the wild
• very valuable (what kind of value? monetary or game play...can't tell)
• trade
• Pokémon Island
• the River
• the Cave
• Smash Coins (is not defined in the referenced article Super Smash Bros. Melee)
• Pokémon Master
• Indigo League tournament
• Bulbasaur cards have appeared in the Base Set (and Base Set 2 and Legendary Collection), Gym Challenge (as Erika’s Bulbasaur), Expedition (two cards), EX Team Magma vs. Team Aqua, and EX FireRed & LeafGreen (two cards).
  (yes, the article links to Pokémon Trading Card Game, but it does not provide any description of sets before launching into this rather extensive listing of sets, so there is no context established as to what sets are or why they are important)
• Drake, the Orange Crew Supreme Gymleader
• Pokédex, and the National Pokédex

There are some other miscellaneous issues with the article:

• The article talks extensively about attacks and attack types, but other than the two links at the top to Solar Beam and Leech Seed attacks, there is no discussion and no linking to discussion of what attacks are or how they relate to Pokémon types.
• The article has no reference for this statement: "Nintendo has stated that, unlike the video games, Pokémon in the anime are genderless with a few exceptions."

If the article purports to be a featured article, it must stand on its own without requiring that the reader either has familiarity with the subject or has read other material on the subject.

Finally, I will repeat Temporary Account's opening statement: This article still reads like a fan page but with more mature and professional language. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've tried to link to or explain as many of these topics as possible. A couple, such as Pokémon Breeder, should be relatively obvious given the context (someone who breeds Pokémon), and the statistics (Attack, Special Attack, Special Defend) are very difficult to explain, so instead it's easy just to show what the end result is (in the same way that explaining how to perform brain surgery is difficult, but explaining what it does is easier and has the same effect). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "someone who breeds Pokémon" is not at all obvious. What does it mean to breed Pokémon? This is in the context of a game and as such is unexplained. And "very difficult to explain" doesn't seem like the type of comment I would expect concerning a FA.

One other thing I forgot to mention in my original comment was that the article is lacking any "big picture" description of Bulbasaur. How is Bulbasaur significant and how does it relate to anything outside of Pokémon? – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By "difficult to explain", I meant difficult to explain directly. Explaining that a high special attack statistic would increase the damage points statistic of non-normal type moves would probably still be too complicated and require explanation of the damage points system, which is itself complicated, while explaining what effect a high special attack figure has on Bulbasaur's move set makes it clearer. I've now linked Pokémon breeder to Pokémon breeding. Thanks. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How is Bulbasaur significant and how does it relate to anything outside of Pokémon? I don't see any significance other than it's one of the first couple pokemons you can acquire. BlueShirts 20:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, just doing more "wikifying" or linking various terms in the article to other wiki articles does not clarifying anything. In other words, it doesn't solve the objection. On a side note, "Pokemon breeder" isn't at all clear, since from what I understand, Pokemon aren't "bred," they are captured. Temporary account 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the idea of linking is that to explain, for example, the entire concept of Pokémon breeding, which is only a minor part of the article, would take up a lot of space. By linking to the appropriate article, Pokémon breeding in this case, hopefully misunderstandings (like the above) can be cleared up. After all, the article on George W. Bush shouldn't contain an in depth description of baseball, even though he owned a baseball team briefly. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, my comments about adding more information about it's "cultural significance" are not addressed (see comments section), and neither are Tsavage's comments about referencing problems. In the end, this article is just all plot summary (in anime and in game section) and product information (in other media section), don't you agree? Temporary account 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How does the (apparent) revelation that Pokémon are bred in any way contradict your previous knowledge that Pokémon are caught? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To me the "revelation" and Temporary Account's confusion over the term simply illustates the problem that exists in the article with explaining the terms. The article is just relying on too much familiarity with the base subject matter and introducing too many unexplained terms. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• We can’t explain all the mechanics of the games (stats, trading, etc.) in detail, we would be accused of padding the article with irrelevant information not specific to Bulbasaur. Responses to some of your specific points:

• A Pokémon breeder is someone who breeds Pokémon. This is obvious. If you need to know more about Pokémon breeding, it’s linked and briefly explained later in the article. Nonetheless, I’m going to remove the “Pokémon breeder” bit, because that’s not important, what’s important is that Bulbasaur is recieved from an NPC in Yellow.
• Both “damage-dealing Poison attacks” and “learn naturally” are fairly common-sense. “damage-dealing” is self-explanatory, Poison has already been addressed as a Pokémon type, and learn naturally is also self-explanatory. It cannot learn them naturally, therefore it either can’t learn them or must be taught.
• You are, quite simply, wrong about the Pokémon types article. It does discuss about how attacks are resolved in the case of multiple types.
• “learns moves” learn, transitive verb: to acquire knowledge of
• “advanced techniques and the power increase” Oh, COME ON. This refers directly back to what has just been said.
• “Pokémon Island” again, self explanatory, a location in the game this sentence describes. The River and the Cave are clearly two of the “varied environments” referred to by that sentence. I agree you couldn't be expected to understand “the River” and “the Cave” by themselves, but with the context provided, it’s common sense.
• The article on Super Smash Bros. Melee is not referenced by that sentence, merely wikilinked in it. Instead, the guide on IGN, which does explain Smash Coins, is cited.
• A lot of your questions about the anime, manga, and TCG are again things which, if fully explained, would add a great deal of general information not suited for an article specific to Bulbasaur.
• Pokédex... hmm, perhaps it could stand an explanatory sentence, and it could also be wikilinked.

That doesn’t cover everything, but it does hit a few points. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create that list to try and push a point. I simply jotted down the terms that I encounted where the meaning was not clear and was not discovered with a reasonable amount of effort. That said, I may have missed some things, but there are a number of the points above where I think your familiarity with the subject is perhaps making it difficult for you to appreciate the confusion these terms caused.

• A Pokémon breeder is someone who breeds Pokémon. This is obvious.
  The Wikilink is fine, but to state it again, it is not obvious what it means to breed Pokémon.
• learn naturally and learn moves
  Sorry, but I don't know within the context of the game what it means or requires to "learn moves" and the article would have made more sense if this was explained. Also, the qualification "naturally" seems to be intended to differentiate this from some other form of learning, creating additional confusion.
• damage-dealing Poison attacks
  This seems to imply that there are non-damage dealing poison attacks, but I don't know because it is left to the reader to speculate on.
• A lot of your questions about the anime, manga, and TCG...
  I don't even know which of my questions you are including in this group, but I think this is missing the point that a featured article should stand on its own. This doesn't mean that it includes every detail (such as the specious analogy of explaining baseball in the George Bush article offered above by Smurrayinchester), but neither should it assume knowledge of related topics. It doesn't seem a stretch to me to provide short explanations of terms accompanied by a link or reference where more in-depth information is available.
• Pokémon Island, the River, and the Cave
  These are proper names that are used in a context that seems to assume familiarity. What is the issue with describing what they are (probably no more than a few words, I'm guessing)?

A large part of why this ends up reading as a well-written fan article rather than as an encyclopedia article is because it seemed like you needed to be a fan in order to "get it". – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose An exceptionally interesting article covering the fictional character within it's fictional enviroment. What the article lacks is the design elements of the character it's developement from thought and pencil drawing to its fully developed game and cartoon persona. There's no information about Bulbasaur's designer(s), no creation elements for the character, no evolutionary drawings. Gnangarra 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Best comparison to what I'm saying is the way in which Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse articles are constructed Gnangarra 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Trust me - I've been trying but that information just doesn't seem to be available. Donald and Mickey have changed a lot over time but Bulbasaur just hasn't :(. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No bulbasaur has yet to changed publicly as Mickey wouldn't have over his early years, computers are better repeatition so indiviual artists would have less influence any way, yet someone would have started somewhere it probably isnt exactly llike it is now. Suggestion have you tried a direct request to Nintendo explaining or even showing what has been created here and asked for their assistance. I know corporations tend to hide their individual employees, but when you present whats here to them and explain how much it can enhance this article and even flow on through other Pokemon articles. Even challenge them on the basis of providing for the future generations, challenge them historically shouldn't Bulbasaur(Pokemon) have record like that of Mickey's 75 plus years on. Would you not like to think that in 75 or 100 years from now something you did is still being discussed, do you think we all would have a similar dream if suggested it was possible. Corporations have bigger thoughts and stronger egos to be ask to provide to an encyclopedia is by far more prestigeous than providing information to gossipy fan clubs. You can always show the response within the article not matter what they say Gnangarra 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment. This is starting to look more like a vendetta against the subject matter rather than a good faith attempt to bring the article to featured status. At the time of this comment there are 47 other featured article candidates that could use such a thorough assessment of sources as this one is getting, yet I don't see it being done. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think there is any vendetta going on here. There is a lot to argue about subject matter, but just throw it aside for a minute and analyze the facts, and facts point that there just isn't that much to write or source about Bulbasaur unless you elaborate and elaborate your language and "trump" up your citations. I read through all the sentences citing the sources and the citations themselves, and I have to agree with Tsavage, that these are really crappy sources. There is no vendetta here, but we are being reasonable critical here. Temporary account 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Given the number of people disagreeing with you on your objections, you may as well give the possibility that you may be wrong a second thought. Also, your need to write "comment + object" to every comment (after having objected already) does not reflect favorably on your argument that this is not a vendetta either. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The number of people agreeing or disagreeing have not bearing on the criticisms raised. It's all just systematic bias. My own nomination of sino-german cooperation didn't even attract nearly one-fifth of the support here. Numbers mean nothing for FAC process, the issues are still there. BlueShirts 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

      Thank you Rune - add some scale to the discussion. There is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be featured if you look at the criteria but some people just can't get over the fact that it's a Pokémon article - and it's good. This is what happened before - people desperately searching for criticism where it isn't there to be found. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

      • • I hope this is not what you truly believed happened in the previous FAC nomination. The article did not pass because it just was not ready. It had plenty of support votes to pass but it was pre-mature. Patience, it is not a race and it is not a judgment on the editors. However, the attitude seems to be ‘nothing wrong with the article so there must be something wrong with the critics.’ It is getting worse this time with others (members of esperanza!?) who are not only rejecting, but also demeaning, criticism. It is one thing to insist that there is nothing wrong with the article, and another to imply that any criticism of the article is anti-pokemon. Some seem to have become so attached to this article that they cannot see the imperfections that others are trying to describe. This is not the perfect article and the FAC process is designed to expose the article to many skilled editors and reviewers who all have different levels of acceptability regarding many issues and criteria. The FA criteria is broad so criticism can easily be found with any article. It is a learning experience (for improving articles to higher and higher standards), rarely an acclamation of good articles. --maclean25 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Comment. You are mistaken, there are lots of criticisms here. Read Tsavage comments, I think if you throw away any biases, you will agree what he asserts. Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Seeing how Tsavage's criticism comes under fire not only by CP, but by other respectable editors, I really don't see how your last comment holds water. Other than his I've only seen "bulbasaur cannot become featured" rants here. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • My criticism "comes under fire"?! What am I doing that deserves censure? Am I using too many words (there is a 100-word-per comment guideline somewhere)? Am I tying up the proceedings with unnecessary, frivolous comments. I've just spent precious time checking every reference in an article, and presenting conclusions and even convenient, NOT out-of-context excerpts from the sources to illustrate. Is that wrong? What seems to be happening to me (and the handful of other people who dare object), is a swarming attack by a) Pokemon/Bulbasaur supporters (how many FAs get 20-30+ support votes) and b) some others who presumably feel that if we get TOO rigorous in actually looking for what the FA criteria indicate, FA will grind to a halt and WP will have no new FAs. That's preposterous. I do feel personally attacked here (well, a little :). I'm not a) against Bulbasaur or anything like that; b) not out to demolish FACs for sport. I do now concentrate on what I think is the lowest edge of the candidate range, and try to contribute balance by pulling that up—not "raise the bar" (to "ridiculous levels"), but raise the bottom end of the practical standards range we're currently enforcing (and I read/review almost every article between the ones I actually comment on). Bulbasaur is IMO at the very bottom of that range, in consideration only because it superficially conforms to a "good article" structure--the content is just NOT THERE. Because 20 or 30 people drop in to support, that alone shouldn't "give it a star". We could have stars for effort. We could change the FA criteria, merge with good articles. But I thought we're here to find the "best WP has to offer (from those articles nominated as FACs)". Yikes! (and I think my comment, for this topic, is germane to the FAC review, and not off-topic as it would be in most others...) --Tsavage 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No kidding. Like many pop culture phenomenom, Pokemon has a strong fan base. Believers or fans of something like this often look past the flaws just to get a Pokemon FA. As you saw in FAC1 and FAC2 many support votes came from such fans, despite the flaws in the article. If anything it is the blind supporters who have the vendetta in seeing it win a FAC no matter what. The objectors should be thanked because they are the ones who have dedicated their time to reviewing and re-reviewing and arguing the details the article as an article and thanks to them (and Celestianpower) the article has been improved. --maclean25 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I'm not saying criticism is bad, is just that the magnitude this whole issue has taken is absolutely absurd. I'm quite certain there are some hardcore Pokemon fans out there who will support this article in any form it is presented; however many support votes come from people who opposed the previous nominations, as well from people who are otherwise quite involved in the whole FA process, either by giving it the shape it currently has or by writing Featured Articles themselves, so it's not only your average Poke-fan voting here. Sadly it is becoming more evident that also some people will oppose no matter what, hence my observation on the "unusual" attention this nomination has received. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I dont' believe there's an anti-Pokemon movement here. Indeed, if you modify and improve the Pokemon main article and nominate it for FAC, it may well have better chance of becoming FA just because there's more verifiable good sources and topics to write about Pokemon. We are here to prevent any embarrassment wikipedia might face if a sub-par (with regards to other FA) becomes a FA. Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Absolutely, because the eyes of the world are fixed on Wikipedia, we might get shut down otherwise. As if there were no WP:FARC or post-FA editing... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • So now you're seriously suggesting that it's a good idea to promote to featured status substandard articles that don't exemplify our best work? Anyway, I certainly don't have a "vendetta" against Pokémon -- although I never played the game, I worked in a card game store from 1999-2001 and those little critters paid my salary. Andrew Levine 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Not at all, but this "prevent an embarrassment to Wikipedia" drama sounds like somebody could use benefit from some words of wisdom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I think it applies to you too. Your point? Temporary account 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
            • That we are not "saving the encyclopedia" here my valiant friend. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
              • We're not here to save the encyclopedia per se but to write better ones and prevent subpar ones from getting FA status. BlueShirts 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
              • For the sake of making this review as full and complete as possible, in fact, Featured Articles is a prime media target, for "fair" coverage, or a total slagging. As we hit the million article mark, and WP has been done to death in the press from every angle, what's left for a hook? Well, a section of articles, conveniently marked by stars, only 1,000 out of 1,000,000, called "The best that Wikipedia has to offer." That makes EVERY article fair game, there is no "representative selection" required, these are ALL the BEST, as a mainstream media reporter, I can pick and choose... And if I'm picking, say, "Ten of Wikipedia's Finest Put to the Test", I'm adding a healthy selection of accessible pop topics to my shortlist: pop artists and songs, movies, recent events,... A topic like Bulbasaur is made to order, what does WP have to say about the "Carmen Miranda of Pokemon"? That's how it works, plain and simple. Why wade through all of WP when you can deal with their self-proclaimed best? Personally, I think overly worrying about "what people are saying" is a recipe for failure in almost any endeavor. On the other hand, there is no faulting QUALITY...strive for the best and all of that... (And unfortunately, this is a really deficient article...really.) IHMO. --Tsavage 04:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Well, many people already disagree with you and you've still not persuaded many extra people since your vendetta began. I just think it's so laughable that you think you don't have a vendetta. It is not a deficient article in any way. Non-fans and even people who have never used a computer or computer game can understand it. The references are adequate (your comment that none of them hold up was totally, utterly wrong and a lie - does that help your case?). Many people think it's brialliant writing (including an English teacher). I cannot see anything stopping this promotion other than your vendetta and Raul is clever enough to see through that. The reason he said for it not being promoted before was (and I paraphrase) that he, as a non-fan, couldn't understand it. Now they can. It will be promoted. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, I guess as this process goes on, it all gets nastier. I'm not sure why many of the regular reviewers around haven't weighed in. At this point, I'm not entirely sure whether I think I'm simply continuing to present my views and participate in the discussion, or whether I'm trying to convince others: other editors of the validity of my objections and the deficiencies of the article, or Raul654 of the "actionability" (a I believe he said that's what he ultimately looks for...). I know I started out simply reviewing Bulbasaur, and reluctantly at that, because in a previous candidacy, I could guess what a protracted session it might be (you know the history of that, I started late in the process, withdrew my entire comment/vote at one point, and ended up spending two months on this...). Right now, you're accusing me directly of reviewing in bad faith, trying to "game the system" or "wikilawyer" with the FA criteria, in order just not to see Bulbasaur as an FA. That's a miserable tactic. Attacking people and their motives is really usually quite vile in most situations, and here, I find it that and also extremely cynical. Besides being plain wrong. Is the process of consensus and FAC review so messed up that I can mount an effective vendetta based on spurious claims? Categorically, I have NO PROBLEM with the subject area nor the topic itself becoming an FA. I have a problem with the fundamental quality of this article, based on a reasonable, current interpretation of the FA guidelines. To respond slightly in kind, I do on one level find this to be an (even if unintentionally) cynical and bullying approach to FA, where form trumps content, associations between editors influences FAC participation, and the desire for FA status supercedes the quest for article quality. I don't suspect some sort of organized plot, this is human nature, when we want things, we try to get them, and can go to some lengths at that... I realize that's flipping your vendetta argument, but that's how it is: if I can be on a "vendetta", then you can be on an unprincipled quest for an FA star. In any case, however flexible interpretation needs to be, "compelling, even brilliant" should NEVER equal "mediocre, even crappy". --Tsavage 17:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • Mediocre, even crappy? What on Earth gives you the right to say this? An English teacher has supported - how can you say you know the English language and what makes good prose better than him? By these long, rambling, vindictive and downright untruthful replies, you only go to emphasise my point that you've got a vendetta. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Have you addressed any of Tsavage's reference objections and added those series/episode references yet? BlueShirts 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Threatening to block me (because you can as an Admin, and you're angry) for my comments here (message just posted on my user talk page), doesn't say much for you... If you're getting worked up into a frenzy, I'm not the cause. As usual, IMO, of course. --Tsavage 17:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • I didn't threaten to block you. In fact, I specifically said I wouldn't. If this was real life, we could have a proper argument about it and you would be exposed as the one who was wrong. But, as it stands you're going to get away with it, like you always do. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Celestianpower, that's the nature of the FAC process. You're going to get feedback from people who dislike the article, for whatever reason. As for the English teacher... "credentials" can't be expected to mean much on the Internet, where middle-aged men can pretend to be teenaged cheerleaders and 10-year-old kids can pretend to be scientists. I can certainly understand TSavage's objections, and they don't get ruled out just because someone claims to be a teacher. I don't think he's intentionally trying to piss you off, he's just making use of the FAC forum to speak to the problems in the article and that's what it's for. Kafziel 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • Why should I be the reasonable one this time? He's deliberately upsetting me and I don't have to stand for it. There are no problems with the article that he's said so I see no reason that he is acting in good faith. I do this in my free time, not because I have to. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • Calm down. I don't think anyone is ticking off anybody. You are disturbed only because some think your article is not of FA caliber. Personally, I don't think you have addressed Tsavage's comments (or other important comments from last FACs). Here's the problem about your approach: You just don't bring out names to support your argument. Thus "one English teacher thinks it's good prose" or "my grandfather understands this" just don't cut it; they are anecdotal, what's the point? For every person you find who support this, I could find ten (it's useless to argue against this point, it's anecdotal too). Also, you can only stand by your own comments, thus don't say Raul will see through it or something to that effect, because if he doesn't, you're implying he is preposterous. One last thing, I think people who oppose here are very civilized, in that we offer SUBSTANTIAL and WELL-FOUNDED criticisms here, and we offer NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, and the criticism only goes to the article, not editors. Temporary account 20:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Don't patronise me, and don't lie about the criticism this article recieved. It's either been lies or unactionable. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • Pipe down and please don't throw words like "lies" and "patronize" around. There are legitimate concerns to be addressed. BlueShirts 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • Now you are getting on my nerves. We on both sides have been so far very civilized in all discourses, and now you are accusing me of lying!? I am personally very offended by it. None of us on the opposing side made any personal attacks. I think you are mad because what we said were TRUE, and you saw that coming, but there's not a darn thing you can do about it. Temporary account 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• About pokemon fanbase support, I find that the idea of mainly all the pokemon fans (whatever you call them) come out of the woodwork to support rather daft. I personally don't like pokemon at all (ok, I really dont like pokemon :) ), but I still managed to see that the article was well written and that I could understand it thoroughly. Even though my exposure to pokemon has been no more than fishing the ugly tazos (or pogs if you will) out of my crisps. Banez 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would just like to point out that an article does not have to be Front Page material to be Featured Article standard. While something too specific like this probably won't be featured on the front page as many people have not even heard of Bulbasaur, that doesn't mean it isn't a very well written article. I am not saying that this is FA material in my opinion, just saying something to keep in mind. As for my own opinion, I'm on the fence here, both sides have valid points, I'll wait a bit and see if I swing to one side or the other. SandBoxer 23:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - it may be worth pointing out that Tsavage made some further comments on my talk page, which Celestianpower has done his best to address. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, for the record, ALoan asked on my Talk page what changes I thought should be made, and last night I posted what I considered to be a reasonably credible editorial outline for this topic on his Talk page. (This is all a little...wearying... I just want to review some FACs... ;) --Tsavage 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment(s) The FA nomination rules clearly state: “Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.” Therefore, Temporary account’s comment “I don't think you can write a FA article just based on Bulbasaur. Not that Bulbasaur is a worthless subject to write about, just that there are not that much important information about this creature.” is completely invalid. Assertions like “if you take away these extraneous language (often unfounded and withour source), and look just at the bones, this article is just a game/fan/stat page” need a rationale. That is to say( signing each section so that people can reply directly):
  • Temporary account, instead of what’s wrong with the article, what kind of content( on the subject of Bulbasaur alone, mind you) would you like to see to make it acceptable to you as a Feature? If you can’t come up with an answer, I don’t see a reason to waste any more time addressing your objection. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. What to say? Personally even though the prose is better now and the paragraphs are less choppy, I still believe (what I have wrote before) that this is just a more detailed game/TV guide and summary, which Wikipedia is not. I'd give the article an A for comprehensive though, but as I have said before, you can write three paragraphs about a barren subject and still be comprehensive, just keep that in mind. To make this article FA, I'd like to see Bulbasaur's influence on mass media, society, child development, and many others just because it is a cultural subject, and also development history or designing of this particular character just because it is a video game character, and someone must have put some thought to come up with it. And these shouldn't be a cursory mentioning of few sentences. But I don't see how anyone can make this an FA since almost anything that can be said or stretched about Bulbasaur have been said and stretched (back to the barren subject thing), and it's still not FA in my opinion. I don't think you can easily find any information about those regarding Bulbasaur. As to validity of my objections, remember, the FA rules are very lax, and the most important rule is #1: "It exemplifies our very best work," and even though the article reads well, it's still lacks many features that will make a FA shine. Personally, I think we should better focus our effort in making Pokemon a FA, since what I have mentioned before can be more easily accomplished with Pokemon article just because there are more information about it. And personally sourcing Pokemon will be a less pain in the ass just because there's more sources out there that are not videogame or TV guides or websites (this is another subject we can go into length, but regarding using guides as sources, it's about academic rigor) Temporary account 08:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So, it’s your opinion that nothing can be done to make Bulbasaur a FA. This is going to sound rather pig-headed, but I can’t think of another way to say it, so: The FA rules may be lax, but they are very clear that unfixable objections may simply be ignored. As for the use of guides, if you scroll down a bit you’ll see I asked you about the subject, so I don’t mind if you take that question and write a reply “at length”, or even just clearly and concisely.-- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is start to get more mind-boggling than ever. I thought people would have the common sense to see what's FA and what's not. FIRST of all, if you think I have any vendettta against Pokemon, you're wrong. In fact, I think we should better put our effort in making Pokemon a FAC rather than Bulbasaur. I don't understand why would people keep nominating Bulbasaur for FA, since it already failed twice miserably before. SECOND, JUST BECAUSE OBJECTIONS CANNOT BE ADDRESSED, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE OBJECTIONs ARE INVALID. FAILURE TO ADDRESS ANY PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THE OBJECTION IS UNACTIONALBE. Please think if you've got a mind, I believe this is easy to understand: I asked that more to be added about cultural influences of Bulbasaur and design history of Bulbasaur, and if you can find good sources for it (as any proper cultural subject should have), then add it to the article. But I doubt that anybody can put meaningful input into that, and thus why I think you can't fix the article to become a FA and thus it will not (we will see). Plus, my objections make sense, and they are not frivolous comments like "this article is too short" or "pictures sucks"...etc. In addition, wikipedia is NOT A GUIDE, which this article is essentially, thus I don't understand how you will be able to fix that. THIRD, my point that if Bulbasaur is made FA, then other key Pokemons (such as Char or Squirtle) could be FA is well-founded and should provide some insights. Consider this: the Time/CNN references all point to half a dozen key Pokemons (Char, Jiggly..etc), and essentially the only references outside game books are these news websites. Think: If this article has it's anime appearance, game appearance, and other media re-written for any of the characters mentioned above, and then added the Time/CNN refernce, you've got yourself another FA. This is just plain idiocracy, and I don't see how Bulbasaur is in anyway more unique than others. I am not here to fix the problems for you, that's not my job. And I have to stress again, the rules for FA is that they should have certain characteristics, and this article just doesn't meet rule number 1 (if you have read other best works in FA). I already wasted precious hours on this, but if I'm needed, I'll comment more. Temporary account 20:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, Pokémon is singular and plural. First of all, this article isn’t a guide. It doesn’t give specific gameplay strategies like “give Bulbasaur such-and-such moveset and raise its stats in this or that manner”, it’s simply informative, talking about its history and distinctive traits, strengths, and weaknesses, as is appropriate for a fictional character, be it one from a game, or one from a book. Second, why shouldn’t the Pokémon articles all become Featured? Not as they are now, obviously, but if they were all as well-written as Bulbasaur with information that comprehensive, there’s no reason all 493 of them shouldn’t be elevated to FA status. And whether they should or not, there’s no reason why that would have a bearing on this nomination. -- WikidSmaht (talk)

Well that answers my concern about common sense. Do you think it's possible to make FA out of every fictional character who has as sparse information about as Bulbasaur? Think. And about my comment that this article is a guide, you didn't read closely. This article is like a TV guide in addition to game guide (should a wikipedia FA focus almost in its entirety on plot summmary, esp if this is a proclaimed cultural subject?). And do you have anything to add about my comment about fixing the problems and actionability? Temporary account 22:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know that its possible to make all the Pokémon features, but I’ve yet to see proof that it isn’t. I’m not sure why the potential of other Pokémon features should be a strike against Bulbasaur. Admittedly, I’m tired now, maybe I’m missing the point. An FA should be comprehensive, and include all relevant information available. If a lot of that is plot, then very well. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Tsavage, I understand that you have a problem with the references. While your view has been disputed( and in some cases, your concerns have been directly addressed with confirmation of printed sources or better links, though you have not deigned to strike them out), I think it worthwhile to ask: What is the nature of the correlation you want between the article and the sources? It might be helpful if you could provide another article which serves as a good example. Also, how far does citing sources and no original research go? If I’m writing a plot summary for The Great Gatsby, can I just say that Gatsby dies? Is the book itself an acceptable source, or do I need to cite someone else who wrote in a review or summary that Gatsby died? You also mentioned content, in passing, so feel free to answer the same question I asked Temporary account. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment... As much as it is obviously not so in practice, I'm still under the impression that this is a REVIEW process, not an article editing session or some sort of improvement hootenanny. I can't imagine the intent of "actionable" is for a laundry list of each individual instance in cases where there are concerns about being "well-written" (2a), "comprehensive" (2b), or even "appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic" (5), or for that matter, "exemplifies our very best work" (1). If I find general poor writing, am I to list EVERY SENTENCE (at times I've personally listed five and 10 sentences as EXAMPLES, and had them "fixed" but nothing else touched)? There has to be a practical line between REVIEW and REWRITE... With editorial reviews like this, you can indeed lose sight of the forest for the trees... --Tsavage 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} rather than complaining. pschemp | talk 09:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I've put more time into the Bulbasaur FAC reviews than went into writing the article, revisions included. Maybe it's "overzealous" (in the "why bother?", not the "fanatical", sense), but I made objections and am following up on them conscientiously. In the maybe three months of this, I could have commented on a 10-20 more FACs than I had time to. It's ultimately up to Raul654 that he sees all this as "constructive" or "on the way to consensus", or "giving all sides a fair shake" or whatever. If there is no consensus after a couple weeks, I'd say, back to the drawing board, and have a cool-off renom period of a couple months. I edit FACs when I am able (although I do have a problem with massive revisions), but I'M NOT HERE TO FIX ARTICLES AT ALL COSTS JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE NOMINATED FOR FA. It seems like FA status is more of the desired end result than just great articles... It doesn't matter that people object, that there may be problems, just "meet the technicalities and get your star"... This is of course the minority trend, but bad culture has a way of spreading... --Tsavage 15:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That’s a ridiculous and unfair statement. I understand your temper may be running short, but it’s unkind to so belittle the work done on the article.( For the record, I don’t think you have any responsibility to fix it yourself.) Anyway, objections to an article on principle don’t matter. They have to be objections to the content which can reasonably be addressed within the context of the specific article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My temper isn't running short, nor my patience, just my time (it's a seasonal thing)... And I was being literal about the hours spent, as anyone who's looks through this...fascinating multipart review can easily tell. And objections based on "comprehensiveness", "well-written", the "very best work" are not "Principle" they're featured article criteria... They just don't evaluate as neatly as say, copyvio or verifiability (although, even a straightforward references objection can go a little wild, as we have seen...) --Tsavage 16:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That’s not true, Celestianpower and I have both spent numerous hours rewriting and tweaking.

I also didn’t make myself clear, I guess, I wasn’t saying that those particular things( “comprehensive”, “well-written”) were “principle”, I was just pointing out that they we disagree on whether the article measures up in those respects, and it’s not much use to argue over them at this point.

The “principle” comment was a response to “It doesn't matter that people object”, essentially saying, no, it really doesn’t matter if they object on principle. It only matters whether the article is well-written. By “principle”, I was referring to Temporary account’s assertion that an article on Bulbasaur cannot be improved in such a way as to be feature-worthy. That’s simply wrong, and as it is the basis of his objections, those objections hold little weight. Your objections, while I disagree with many of your evaluations, are more substantive, and based on things which are, in theory, fixable( the disagreement is on whether they all need to be fixed). -- 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I fear that you both missed pschemp's point. She wasn't asking you to fix Bulbasaur at all. You were (at that point) talking about the inadequacies of the FAC process, not Bulbasaur. She was merely asking for you to stop complaining about that and (if it really matters to you), fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celestianpower (talk • contribs) .

Oh. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. -- Tsavage 16:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. (I didn't say anything, but I was thinking the same thing as these guys when I read it, and I did direct some curses at my computer screen.) Kafziel 17:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Celestianpower is correct in his interpretation of my comment. pschemp | talk 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As you said, in practice, it’s more than just a review. I will admit it’s hard not to take some of your comments personally, as I wrote much of the prose, and took great pains to fix up the rest as well as I could without losing the meaning. Anyway, “well written” comes down mostly to structural issues and opinion,but I don’t really understand why you think the article isn’t comprehensive or of an appropriate length. As for tightness of focus, as I said, it originally didn’t explain every aspect of Pokémon, but then it was criticized for assuming too much. Well, I think we’re at an impasse on content issues, so I’ll ask you again to address my questions about what makes references acceptable. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, a couple days ago, (by request) I went so far as to provide my take on a barebones content outline for Bulbasaur, not particularly for "FA", just as...a decent basic article. It's consistent with the many detailed comments made in the previous recent FAC reviews. It should make my specific views plain, if nothing previous did. The outline is pretty close to basically rewriting the entire article... With a good number of those suggestions now included, yes, the article is somewhat better. "However" (as in, NOT me "stubbornly sticking to..."), the "fixes" are a bit bandaided on there (awkward), and there are still some things missing (as in the outline), so a few more additions and a thorough copyedit are still required. In a less-human, more rational world, I'd suggest this FAC would be politely withdrawn, the article revised, and then, back at it (in, I'm sure, all of 4-5 days), rather than expect the people who've taken time to critique to revise and unravel and adjust their objections based on the original nomination... IMHO... --Tsavage 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the revisions made by Celestian in direct response to those comments, or talking about the current version? I did a fair bit of copyediting work to fix the awkwardness and redundancy, and I thought it a rather good read, now, though I respect that you may disagree. I’m not sure what’s still missing based on your outline. Some stuff hasn’t been removed that you suggested should be, but everything you said should be included, is. Setup, explanation of the franchise at the beginning and of each aspect in the appropriate section, notes on B’s creation and (lack of) change, its particular role within the franchise and each medium, related products, all there. And there were 3 or 4 pictures to begin with, you don’t think that’s enough for an article of this length? Perhaps we can add scans of the cards or manga, but I think the artwork, screenshot, and anime screencap are pretty illustrative.

I'm not sure which version, as I'm still tracking revisions roughly by the couple of days, not the hour or two. How many times should I expect to read this article, anyhow? I think one examination for nomination, a couple of skims if there are minor changes, maybe another overall read in a week or two AT MOST. Should I really count the times I've had to read this article, for two or three FACs, including a Raul654 reset in the middle of last one... A dozen times? Two dozen? I will read again (I last read last night). Q&A... --Tsavage 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Last night was probably my revisions, so, perhaps you don’t need to check it again, yet. When I’m trying to work with an article that changes, I find it helpful to look at the history, and compare the current version to the last edit as of my previous reading. That way I can see if significant changes have been made, and if they have I can just scroll down to read the current version. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have in common the use of diffs... --Tsavage 02:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that came out wrong. I didn’t mean to imply that you don’t know how to use Wikipedia, I just thought if you checked the diffs it might be clearer who’d made the last revision when you read it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I honestly do appreciate you elaborating on your problems with the content, but you’ve completely ignored my original questions to you about the what you want from citations. Repeating them here, numbered:

1. Why haven’t you responded to the replies to your problems with the sources?

1a. You haven’t said whether you still dispute the authority of the books based on their age, even knowing Bulbasaur has not changed significantly. Also, I added several newer publications, including official guides, which( I’ve just noticed) you asked for.

I haven't seen any real responses or substantive changes. The gist of my objection in this instance was to the references as a whole, and by and large, I don't see that they've changed. I'll address your specifics below... --Tsavage 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and the "1999". Again, I was reviewing REFERENCES, and in that context, found it curious and notable that the two main newspaper articles, and the main print texts, all dated 1999. Much as I check the dateline or copyright on articles and books I'm looking stuff up in, particular more current and developing subjects, I checked these. Given that much in Pokemon has changed since 1999, the suggestion wasn't that the info from those sources wasn't relevant or correct, but quite logically that they were, used alone, outdated, not up to date. For instance, 150 Pokemon became 386 or 395. One would think other changes also went along with that, and the references should include sources that include the most current info (like, 395)... --Tsavage 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can understand why you’d question them, but the truth is that despite the franchise’s growth, neither Bulbasaur itself nor its role in the series have changed significantly. The only major change, I suppose, was the addition of its Overgrow ability. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

1b. At least one link has been changed, is it still a problem reference?

All of the references that are "personal sites" are invalid by WP guidelines. As is generally the case, what's "personal" can be argued. Are pojo.net, Scyther's Pokemon Place (hoseted at hostultra.com/~spp, which looks like a personal account space to me), serbil.net media or academic source sites with some independent credibility: staff, print publications, business interests, whatever might help distinguish their content from whatever anyone may want to put on any site? I notice new books: what do the Ono titles have to do with the article, they all have Pikachu in their titles, not Bulbasaur, and are listed as general references...? --Tsavage 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely my fault. I foolishly did not check the new link myself, it is indeed a fansite with little to establish its authority. While pojo.com is a media outlet and a company with publications, I don’t know enough about the rest to give them any credibility. What I do know is as follows: the Bulbapedia is a Wikicity with similar standards to Wikipedia, and therefore roughly as reliable – which may be positive or negative. Serebii.net does not appear to be a business, but is far more comprehensive and better respected than most fan sites, so I don’t know what its status really is.

As for the Ono books, also my fault, they are volumes of the manga (they do all have “Graphic Novel” in their titles) and should be citations for the specific plot points they contain, I’m just not sure of the proper way to go about using them as such. I did also, however, add the most recent official guides, and those should serve well as general references for the article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the pojo.net home page, it is a kind of portal ad site/links directory with linking to keyword-related Pokemon products on other sites. There is no company information, no apparent links to internal pages on the site. I don't doubt it's a "business", but not so in the "credible" source sense, and, from what is readily available, as likely still a "personal" site as not. --Tsavage 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that’s probably because you’re visiting pojo.net, a cybersquatting ad site, and I’m talking about pojo.com, where the reference actually points. An honest mistake, but an important difference. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't track down how I got to pojo.net, but in any case, pojo.com is of the same "personal/fan" type of site. It opens with a Pokemon blog, is filled with Pokemon info, runs Google adwords and other ads and says it's been around for seven years. The copyright notice notes: "This site is not sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise affiliated with any of the companies or products featured on this site. This is not an Official Site." I'd guess its making a tidy sum from Google alone so has a "business" motivation, and I don't doubt it's well-run and if nothing else, kept in line by its discerning audience. And I personally would look up certain types of info on this site. But in terms of a formal reference, it isn't an established credible source. I probably wouldn't even note this alone as a FAC problem, but when the majority of other refs are ALSO "fan sites" and such, all being presented as References (WP:V, not just, "places where they also said this"), it is a significant problem. --Tsavage 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

2. What is the nature of the correlation you want between the article and the sources? It might be helpful if you could provide another article which serves as a good example.

There is no nature of what I "want", these are references, meant to support the text. Where they're inline, it's obvious. Where they're general, relevance should be fairly obvious from the titles (see Ono, above). If you're asking about my concern with stuff like Livingstone, I have a problem with citations that don't clearly represent, or misrepresent, their sources. I went through that in a comment above. When several citations point to the same amount of info in the source as included in the article, I question both the quality of the sources and the construction of the article from them. When two book synopses are cited to a commercial site that contains the same one-sentence book review, rephrased (Amazon), I have a problem. When major media publications are named (CNN/Time Asia), I expect more info in the source article that has been summarized here, not exactly that amount of info... When "mentioned in a satire" is stated (Guardian), I expect that mention to be somewhat substantial... One or two instances, such as to verify a quote, are fine, several like this, and...like I said, I wonder about source quality... This references review wasn't my entire problem with the article, it was just a references review. --Tsavage 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to imply that it was your entire problem, you also expressed concern for the content. Really, much of the information in the article is covered by the general references, I guess that’s why I don’t have as much problem with the inline references being to minor points, though I also don’t consider them deceptive, as you seem to. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

3. How far does citing sources and no original research go? If I’m writing a plot summary for The Great Gatsby, can I just say that Gatsby dies? Is the book itself an acceptable source, or do I need to cite someone else who wrote in a review or summary that Gatsby died? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're making my point. That's the authors' choice. IMO, inlines in an encylopedia should only be used for quotes, potentially controversial statements, and when somewhat complex concepts are summarized. Roughly that's "my" rule, which is one opinion within the larger WP:V/WP:CITE... It applies more to hard science topics, for one. In entertainment, inlines aren't that useful, because in many of these "press release/product lit" type sources used, every second phrase can be cited, there's not much variation in content complexity or level of summary through an article... Proper footnotes (explanations written out at the bottom), if anything inline, are probably more practical. Don't forget, from what I gather, WP:V was formulated to combat PHYSICS CRANKS, not for pop product articles. We haven't worked out this distinction too well, hence, in part, these long debates on Celine Dion, Bulbasaur, Hollaback Girl,... Pop topics can't be sourced like "normal" academic subjects (and the avaiable sources often won't be nearly as comprehensive as for non-pop cult topics), and FAC can't expect to shove 'em all together with the same type of review, especially around references... --Tsavage 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m not trying to be difficult, and I probably sound stupid here, but, huh? That answer is not very clear to me... Here’s what I think you’re saying( please correct me if I’m wrong, I apologize for being slow): In your opinion, for scientific information, such as “a water molecule consistes of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen item”, sources should be cited, but for plot information from the narrative of a work of art( such as a book, film, or game), the work itself is a sufficient source, as long as the article merely states the facts and does not try to introduce a new interpretation of them. Is that right? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic: just read it again, slowly. I think the gist of it will come through. Gatsby and molecular make-up examples are too specific (IMO: no, and no). It's case by case, and here we don't have the convenience of an editor-in-chief and editorial staff collaborating over a whole body work. So, article by article common sense dictates. Citing Rolling Stone is probably not as "meaningful" as citing Scientific American in most cases, although both are general audience magazines, both are OK sources, both belong in the...bibliography. Your question ultimately doesn't concern Bulbasaur specifically. My opinions on each of the citations are there in the review. Basically, be consistent. Don't cite: "Most Bulbasaur cards are of the “common” rarity and can generally be found with relative ease.[12]" and but NOT "Nintendo has stated that, unlike the video games, Pokémon in the anime are genderless with a few exceptions." Prefereably, keep the inlines to a minimum. But that's my opinion, in answer to your question, and nothing really to do with my B refs review. --Tsavage 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, to make it relevant, what I’m trying to ask is, do statements made by the games themselves about Bulbasaur need to be quoted by another source to be fair game for inclusion? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's up to the authors to make those decisions. There's obviously no WP standardardized approach, so when it comes to FAC, each is a separate consideration. Is it consistent? Does it work? Some articles are practically RIDDLED with suprscripted little numbers. Oh, well. I can go, "I object" on principle to every such article, but that's futile. But any sort of reference aspect can be objected to in any one article. In B, the inlines are inconsistent (not applied evenly to the same level of information throughout), and the overall quality of refs seemed poor. That was what I found... --Tsavage 06:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason I ask is because what you took to be a list of other Wikipedia articles at the beginning of the references section was actually meant to be a list of the games themselves( as general references). They’re just wikilinked because they happen to have articles. The reason it’s a simple list, probably not appropriate for a FA, is twofold: 1) I wrote up the list before I knew Bulbasaur was getting nominated again and 2) I have no clue how to MLA-cite a video game.

I don’t know whether this will help or kill this nomination, but the fact is, part of the article was written using the games as references for the plot, and also using information from the Pokéxes( Pokédices? A Pokédex is a small electronic device carried by each main character in the Game Boy games, a sort of field guide for all the Pokémon, which contains information about each species’ habits and physiology). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, "level of summary", maybe that's confusing. In an article that lists critics opinions of seven albums, or a vid game character that lists stuff from four generations or 19 shows, the info is flat, start inlining one thing and you have to do 'em all. In some other articles, there is more variation: organic food there are a bunch of different concepts to be summarized, to varying degrees (certification, fresh vs processed, blah, blah, etcetera). This type of material IMO lends more to inlines where appropriate. Clearer? Maybe... I'm typing like talking... :) --Tsavage 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sort of clearer, I suppose... Because inline refs were used for minor things, the general refs should be made into inline citations for all the info, too? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Except IMO, the other way around would be better, else the article becomes littered with inane inlines. On a topic like this, put the generals at the bottom, and reserve the inline for substantial areas, where significant material from the source has been SUMMARIZED (not sentences paraphrased word-for-word), that sort of thing. In FAC, some might tjem object to "not (enough) inlines", but that's an entirely different...fight, and I'd be...on the side of the fewer is better, this is an general encyclopedia, not a collection of research papers and doctoral theses.... In the absence of a detailed, precedented policy or practice, consistency and common sense (is it readable, does it help the READER?) for the topic should rule. --Tsavage 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • As a sub-comment to Tsavage’s source concerns: Temporary account, why are game guides invalid as a source of information on the games they cover? And anime guides for information about the show? Isn’t the entire purpose of their existence to provide such information? I’d love to hear your rationale for dismissing them. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Andrew Levine, same as Temporary account: what kind of content( on the subject of Bulbasaur alone, mind you) would you like to see to make this article acceptable to you as a Feature? If you can’t answer, your objection is invalid. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi, just jumping back into this discussion. For Bulbasaur to be a featured article, I would like to see information including: (1) Useful sales information on Bulbasaur-specific merchandise (to gauge its popularity relative to other Pokémon); (2) Information on how the character (as appearing in the animé, the card game, etc.) was created -- right now there's just a little note that its artwork was designed by Ken Sugimori; (3) A treatment of Bulbasaur's individual cultural impact, separate from the rest of the Pokémon franchise; (4) A level of quality in the prose that ensures that even my 80-year-old grandmother (who is smart and likes to read about many diverse topics, but knows absolutely nothing of Japanese videogame characters) could have her interest held in the subject and finish the article feeling like she understands what Bulbasaur is all about, without any open questions. Andrew Levine 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Spangineer, have you read the responses to Tsavage, and reviewed the current sources and citations? If so, what more are you looking for, exactly? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat, your concerns have been addressed and your questions answered. Please strike your objection or express your additional reasons for it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, a lot of information has just been added to explain certain related concepts. I’d like to take this opportunity, before someone calls it “padding”, to point out that when it wasn’t there, there were claims that the article assumed too much knowledge of Pokémon on the part of the reader. You cannot have it both ways. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: it seems to me that a majority of supporters have link to Esperanto, any connections? I might be wrong, but I dont' think it offers a fair view on the article. How can we ask for more editors to check out FAC section. Temporary account 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Esperanza? Anyway, I don’t see how that’s a problem, unless you’re Assuming Bad Faith and suggesting that they’re supporting it based on their link to Celestianpower, rather than an honest evaluation. But, if you really need more opinions, you could ask the regulars from FAC who have yet to weigh in, and mention it to relevant Wikiprojects, like WP:CVG. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza is completely unrelated to Pokémon, if that's what you're asking. A surprisingly high number of frequent contributors are members, and most them don't give a hoot about Pokémon. On a different note, this page is far too long, and it's choking up the rest of FAC. Can some of the comments move to the discussion page? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to "WP is not paper"? There's a perfectly functional FAC ToC and each FAC review is its own page/watchlist entry. There is obviously something going on around the Bulbasaur review, why obscure the discussion? I think everything so far is (still) directly relevant to the article and/or to this specific review. --Tsavage 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But there is a recommended length limit to pages of 32 kb. This is already at 57 kb, and it's constantly getting longer, which makes the page hard to load on slow modems (over a minute on a 56k modem). Generally, when discussion becomes too long or stifling on these sorts of pages, extraneous comments are moved to the dicussion page. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that’s the point: None of these comments are extraneous, except maybe this proposal to remove them, and the Esperanza issue. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And the WP home page is 164K, so if 32K is a poor accessibility threshold, we've got bigger problems than FAC... --Tsavage 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it just boggles my mind that Bulbasaur attracts 20 supports, and most of the other FACs (before or after this nomination) did not even attract a fraction of attention Bulba received here. I think it doesn't sound right (systemic biases as I have heard, I presume?). Personally, I think most supports are not critical enough or reasonably critical at all, or that there's double standards going on here (compare Rune Welch's and Cuivinien's comments on Che Guevera and Bulbasaur FACs). That's just my observation, and I am not accusing anybody of anything. Temporary account 22:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I’ll certainly concede that they aren’t critical enough. Some of them, in fact, provide no evaluation whatsoever, and just say “Support”. That is problematic and troubling. I don’t see that as necessarily indicative of a bias, though. As for Rune Welch and Cuivinien, I think their issues with Che Guevera are not about lack of enough information in general, but that it is not comprehensive because it completely neglects information which is available on another side of the subject. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, this might be heading slightly off topic, but I just noticed Esperanza as well, it's a community/network in WP with a charter, elections, membership, and so forth, offering "hope and reassurance". I find Celestianpower is the Administrator General (head honcho) of this org, so I am clearer on his "block you" comment on my user page, where he said (about me and this FAC), "If I wasn't Admin Gen of Esperanza I'd both block you and call you all of the swear words under the Sun." Now, pardon me, but that's all pretty weird. I see that maclean25 also noted the Esperanza connection (above), so it's at least three editors...wondering... Relevant? --Tsavage 00:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well now I'm just appalled at what the comment above insinuates. It *is* off topic and irrelevant. There is no Bulbasaur Cabal. pschemp | talk 13:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not insinuating anything, I'm making a direct statement: "Esperanza" is a some sort of presence and factor in this FAC review. What's going on...? --Tsavage 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Celestian presumably asked them to vote on the article. I’m assuming that the request was “Vote on the Bulbasaur FAC” rather than “Come support Bulbasaur as an FA”... Anyway, I don’t see how that’s a problem, unless we’re Assuming in Bad Faith that they’re supporting it without an honest evaluation. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. You guys need to stop dragging Esperanza into this. There is no conspiracy to make this FAC pass, and there is no Esperanza voting block. Again, insinuating this is dangerously close to Assuming Bad Faith. And please no, "I was only stating facts" becasue if they weren't a concern, there would have been no reason to even start this topic. Wikipedia is a large project. In groups like this, that are so big that no one person can do or know everything, people who work in the same corners come to know each other. Nauturally people with the same interests will show up in the same areas, and many people who know each other have joined esperanza as it spreads by word of mouth from person to person. Yes, many of the voters are member of esperanza, but there is no esperanza conspiracy, many of the members knew each other before esperanza and the organization has nothing to do with this. Likewise, if I look at talk pages I can see that Tsavage and Spangineer seem to be friends and have voted the same way. This is the nature of a massive group project such as this. This whole conversation is a slippery slope to personal attacks and bad faith accusations. Please stop it now.pschemp | talk 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Esperanza has over 250 members, so the chances that three or four of them happen to meet on a fairly high profile page (FAC) are fairly high. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Except it’s not 3 or 4, I count 14 so far. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, you're right. It's a lot more than I had thought. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, it boggles the mind that so many esperanza people comment on Bulbasaur rather than other FACs. And most of them aren't offering critical support at all. Temporary account 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing short of a voting block no matter how you look at it. Most FACs don't even attract that many votes, including both support and object altogether. BlueShirts 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I supporting because of Esperanza, do you think? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Did any of us say that all votes came from the esperanza block? BlueShirts 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on, this is a non-issue. Do you honestly think that even a mibnority of the above would just support becasue I'm the Admin Gen of Esperanza? Most are respected members of the community and therefore wouldn't take voting for an FAC like this lightly. This is a moot point generally. You've run out of criticism even vaguely related to the article and have now moved onto the voters here. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Most FACs don't attract even a quarter of number of votes we have now, not to mention that 14 out of around 30 came from esperanza. Come on, and you accuse us of having a "vendetta" against bulbasaur? And you haven't finished addressing most of the referencing problems yet. BlueShirts 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Celestianpower, the fact is that this article has an unusual percentage of votes from Esperanza. Maybe they respect you more than you think and would support because of that, I hope that they wouldn’t; I don’t know them all well enough to say either way and I’m not prepared to violate Good Faith by assuming they supported for the wrong reasons. It doesn’t help, though, that many of the support votes have little or no rationale. If you asked them to evaluate the article, you really should ask them to look through it carefully and include reasons for supporting. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Personally, I WP:AGF on such issues but looking at the ones with no comments (4 of them), none are Esperanzians. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I do understand what some of you are trying to say: people should start nitpicking all FA candidates in lieu of just the ones that discuss a topic they dislike. However, from a neutral point of view, I'm torn between support and object. Take it easy and don't let your opinions on the SUBJECT MATTER get in the way. Furthermore, if you are working on this article, don't let the nitpicking get under your skin. Work on what you can; if Raul finds that some object votes are obsolete, he'll be fair. Deckiller 02:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable position, although I don't think it's that simple. It's a lot simpler. I don't think SUBJECT MATTER (like "persecuted Bulbasaur") is at all the situation here. It is simple article quality. The pattern I've seen with certain articles which I think applies here is:

Pop topic with poor references that don't cover the subject evenly This may be vid games, movies, actors, pop musicians and songs. Mostly press release/PR sources, like magazine articles, fan info, critic sites, and to do with the most superficial elements: review of album vs review of progress of the artist as musician; product specs (description, etc) vs product analysis; etc.

Uneven writing quality Not-so-hot material can still be woven into a decent, even passable article if the writing is clever: material is employed well, readability is good,... In "these" articles, writing is competent, but the use of inadequate material is literal and obvious.

At-first-glance comprehensiveness: follows "FA format" Substantial amount of subheaded text, references, a lead with some sort of summary sizzle, images. "Looks good."

In FAC, relatively large "loyal following" Unusually large vote count, and persistent, energetic, vocal criticism of objectors, which in practice takes on an almost interrogation team aspect, with waves of different "lead objectors to the objectors" over time, coming from different angles: emotional, logical and reasonable, etc.

I think it's missing the point to think it's "really" dislike of the subject as a somehow invalidating underlying motivation for, say, my objection here. I just don't like being made a fool of. This has nothing to do with conspiracies, or initial bad faith, it's just about fairness and FAC. Few people are going to stick with something like this, like Temporary account has, or I have, in this case. Look at Monicasdude, who may behave like a fanatic elsewhere, but from what I've seen here, was a strong objector and is now under RfC/arbitration attack for his "commenting" efforts (I read a good dozen of the examples of his "misbehavior" and they were...I didn't get it...). So, if you want to be FAIR, consider that: Should we let a few substandard FAs in just to "keep the peace"? Should objectors be "less vigorous" when it's "not really necessary"? Condoning these concepts and behaviors SUCKS. They are the end of all that is ideal and noble... They cause cancer... :) --Tsavage 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the consensus on the objection side is that this article has reference problems that are not addressed and is lacking a major sections that need to be added before it can even be considered for FA (see my comments way above in comments section). I have a feeling that this discussion is dragging too long because Raul hasn't make a decision yet (there are 40+ FAC on this page and they're just piling up). Temporary account 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Tsavage's reference objections need to be addressed. BlueShirts 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may comment, 148 KB is inexcusable for an FAC. I think this to be simply notorious. The discussion is thorough, but I'm not so sure that it had to extend into unruly lengths. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This should have been closed by now, but instead it keeps cycling through revisions. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Raul is keeping this FAC for so long. Except for some minor grammar and sentence fixes, none of the more important objections are addressed at all. I have a feeling that this FAC is not a FAC at all, but more like peer review, which is a waste of time and space here. Temporary account 23:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)