Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon/archive1

Pokémon
This is the main Pokémon article. I'd like to thank all of its editors for getting it good enough to be featured status. I reviewd the article, and think that it has great information, and good enough for featured status, please write your comments, regards Poke Master  (Talk &bull; Contribs) 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong object Needs more references - it even still has Template:citation needed on it. No citations at all in the many entire sections. Also pushing the limits of WP:article size. Intro should probably be shortened. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per above, as much as I'd like this article to become featured, it's not even a GA yet.-- A c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Much of this information needs to be moved to sub-articles (most of which already exist), the Criticism section is poorly cited and weaselriffic, and the prose is less than brilliant. This still needs work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per above. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Putting this article on FA status is not the way to help to get it to FA status. Alvin6226 talk 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs).

guideline for most topics, for this one, it may be a good idea to ignore it (as it isn't policy) if sections need further expansion, as they do in this case. Tito xd (?!?) 23:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC) -Cormacalian 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, bad grammar (going from the bottom up, the first words, "potential objectional content" should be "potentially objectionable content", to start!), dense prose with long spans without any kind of illustration, too much emphasis on lists and unverifiable details (e.g. "Another theory is that Pokémon is based in the future, as technology is fairly advanced and Earth is seen in basically all of the movies." Source?), stubby sections, and lack of references are just the cherry on the top of the cake. While Article size is a good
 * Oppose, per above. Also, it is my opinion that an article should not be nominated until all [citation needed]s are met. Honestly, and in no offense to anyone, this nomination was very premature.


 * It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. In this article, there is only link: '1996'. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)