Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard/archive2

Charizard
Previous failed FAC

This is the second time this has been nominated for FAC. After fixing all the problems in the last FAC, me and a few other PCP members fixing the refs, and making a few changes, I think its just about ready now, cheers &mdash; M in  un  Spiderman 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. References section should be split into "Footnotes" and "References" sections, "References" including the DVDs, publications and volumes. — Wackymacs 18:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, have I done it right? &mdash; M in  un  Spiderman 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, thats one improvement...However as the others have said, there are problems with the sources. — Wackymacs 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know what "small number" means in order to be "fair use". I noticed however that all 6 images are property of "Pokémon USA, Inc." and it is possible that that exceeds the "small number" allowed. Sijo Ripa 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically nearly everything, anime, video games and toys etc, is owned by Pokemon Inc and it would be very hard to get pictures that adequately describe the subject matter without resorting to fair use. You can't really illustrate the video game without using images from the video game or box art, if you know what I mean. Harryboyles 04:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote now: Conditional object. First of all, images are not necessary for an article to be a FA (see: What is a featured article?). Secondly, only the first image seems to be really necessary for this article, because it is very difficult to describe such a fictional creature. Thirdly, the fair use rules takes precedence over our wishes. I think the number of pictures should be trimmed down to 1-2 (perhaps 3), which is without any doubt a "small number" and "proportional". There shouldn't be any doubt left for a FA, which are after all our leading and shining examples. Sijo Ripa 12:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the anime, lead and TCG images are the most important, since the manga isn't described at all, and the game atwork isn't a screenshot. CHeers, H ig hway Return to Oz... 12:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is possible to describe the anime and manga in the article text, as this is by itself not too hard (the creature is decsribed and shown above and anime and manga are two well established genres (and the Pokemon anime and manga perhaps even have their own articles available on Wikipedia). It seems more difficult for the TCG and the lead, so I think that those two images constitute "fair use". I'm not an expert though. Sijo Ripa 12:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the style of battling is very different in the anime, and Pokémon can often look different. What's it doing in the picture, battling an Articuno is also a reference to its imense power. Th reason the TCG is fair use is becasue that card was at one point the most expensive and elusive card in the whole game, and probably still is. H ig hway Return to Oz... 14:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object there are still not enough secondary sources. And there hasn't been any visible check of all the references, after it failed the refernce spot check 5/5. Nothing has been chaged in the article, why bother? H ig hway Return to Oz... 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Per above. Hezzy 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Object We don't need another pokemon as a FA. This article isn't important enough to be a FA in my opinion. We could have a country or famous person and that would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan the Magnificent (talk • contribs)
 * Not a valid reason to object. Subject matter is not relevant to FAC. —Cuivi é nen 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you wish to keep the balance of featured articles on the side of countries, I recommend you get to work. We don't, and shouldn't, retain a balance by suppressing perfectly good Pokemon articles, we do so by working on other articles to bring them up to standard. The failings of our country articles are not the fault of Pokemon articles and we shouldn't treat Pokemon articles as if this were the case. Of course, everything I've so far said ignores the fact that we promote features articles on grounds of quality, not content. PS. It is considered against etiquette (or Wikiquette) to post a comment without signing it.--Oldak Quill 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)