Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 4 October 2023 [1].

Pokémon[edit]

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article because I believed it has met all the FA criteria stated. I seek to promote this article to featured status so one day it can become a TFA, but I also seek to improve the article further through this nomination just for the sake of improving it. Manifestation have worked on this article for several years, remarkably writing most of the History section and even creating a dedicated translation website; I greatly appreciate his contributions! Wingwatchers (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are several unsupported statements, including an entire paragraph in the General concept section (I didn't go down further than this). - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let me source that. There is no need to oppose for such an easy task. Wingwatchers (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat Everything should be fine now. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is every reason to oppose for that. There are still numerous unsupported statements, so the oppose stands.
You might also think about combing some of the sources - the citation overkill in places makes it hard to read. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just a small check revealed several sources of dubious value at best to outright unreliability at worst, such as International Business Times, Dexerto, TheGamer and may others. The citation formatting is also not consistent between sources, and I have further size concerns as the article has nearly 14,000 words of readable prose. This article needs some work outside of FAC before promotion. The Night Watch (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Night Watch The article is naturally inclined to have such prose size, and WP:SIZERULE stated that the "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Although the prose size might appear visually overwhelming, it includes all the essential aspects of the franchise that are in fact necessary to provide a comprehensive and engaging reading experience. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the International Business Times which is deemed generally unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES, I believed sources like The Gamer and many others you mentioned are generally acceptable and reliable in the field of entertainment. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog has been around for over five years more than Pokémon and has a much more turbulent history, yet that article has only 10,800 words. Final Fantasy has been around for nearly a decade before Pokémon and has only 7,000 words. God of War, Persona, and Kingdom Hearts have no more than 10,000 words despite all being media franchises with passionate fanbases. Regarding the sourcing, Criteria #1c says that sources should be high-quality, and WP:VG/S discussions have cast doubt on the reliability of Dexerto and TheGamer, only listing them as situational. There were even recent discussions debating whether TheGamer and its sister ValNet websites are now generally unreliable. The Night Watch (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid I have to agree with SchroCat and The Night Watch on this. The article falls short of the quality expected for Featured Article status. The use of subpar sources, as highlighted by The Night Watch, is a concern. For a topic as important as this one, I would expect there to be a lot of peer-reviewed studies and sources. A cursory research shows several academic studies and sources that could significantly enhance the article's credibility.

Note that the small list of sources above is by no means exhaustive. Conducting a more thorough examination, preferably through a peer-review process outside the pressure of FAC, could uncover valuable resources to strengthen the article. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 17:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.