Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mudkip

Mudkip
Mudkip is one of the 493 species of Pokémon. Wikipedians from the PCP say that it is better than Treecko. it is very similiar to the article Torchic which was earlier promoted to featured status. If this doesn't qualify, it will be improved depending on the reason given. I think it would qualify for the following reasons.


 * It contains no stub, cleanup, wikify or cite templates
 * It is a clan article
 * It is very useful
 * It is written in a way suitable to Wikipedia  Minun   (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object The article is a copy of Torchic, it needs completely rewritten. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it a copy?  Minun   (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of the paragraphs are copies of each other, look at it. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think he wanted specific paragraphs, so aside from some interchanged names, types, etc. the lead of all of the sections are the same. Morgan695 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would that mean you agree or disagree to this FA?  Minun   (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And most of the endings. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the similarities, they're very similar. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you kept copying the text from Torchic over to mudkip, Highway. But despite that, I will still say Object, because it isfar from ready for FAC.-- A  c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it was the wrong thing to do, it's a good way to cultivate good articles without months of writing, I am saying that we do not need pastry cut Pokémon FAs, it's ridiculous. Torchic got attacked for having half a paragraph the same as Bulbasaur, this article is three quarters Torchic. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming you, just saying. But anyway, that thing about being "Too similar to bulbasaur" in the (torchic's) first FAC was absolutly wrong.  The pokémon articles should look similar, but not like cut and paste copies that have 20% of the words changed.-- A  c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Bulbasaur problem was harsh, but I think it was backlash because it was featured. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)