Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Charizard/1

Charizard

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Charizard/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 14:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This popular topic needs some hands. It currently has tons of issues like most of the referencing were poorly cite, unsourced statements, outdated and the addition of trivia sources/articles at reception section where some should be removed and replaced a better sources that has valuable commentary about Charizard, but it seems to be listicles and such without schoalrly sources. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 11:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Not every page needs scholarly sources. Also, I have not been able to find any unsourced statements. I do not understand this GAR. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "I have not been able to find any unsourced statements" that words amounts WP:ILIKEIT. Look at the appearances section (there are some unsourced statements). I didn't say scholarly sources are requirements of every GA article, but it should replaced all the trivia sources/listicles that have been used instead. If the appearances section have been all cited, the article still needs help especially at reception section, thus Kung Fu Man tagged the article for additional sources since most of it are trivia.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see the issues in Appearances now. Trivia sources in Reception are not a GAR thing though, as GAR does not cover notability. That said, Delist unless someone fixes the problems with unsourced statements. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Trivia should be def remove, that's your only opinion. And btw, we're not even questioning Charizard's notability. He is obviously notable lol  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 13:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Like I said, delist unless someone fixes these issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delist. I've been concerned about the state of this article for a while now, and while it's definitely a notable topic we aren't removing anytime soon, it needs a lot of improvement to stay at GA class. I support delisting until the article's problems have been addressed. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator continues to be confused about the purpose of a GAR. Delisting good articles is done when it is determined that the original review was incorrect or no longer applies. That doesn't seem to be the case here, as it remains adequately written, and this is solely a notability issue. It also seems like Greenish Pickle didn't touch the article to try to improve it, which is another no-no prior to performing a GAR. Infact the issue doesn't even seem to have been raised on the talk page at all. I suggest the nom stop with the GARs for a good long while as it's essentially adding a future burden on editors to reassess all these articles when they actually get fixed (presumably by someone else). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the unsourced statements per WP:BURDEN. I don't see any violations of MOS:TRIVIA (in any case not a part of the GA criteria)—could someone please point me to what I am missing? Also, which scholarly sources should be added to the article? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep since the issues seem to have been addressed. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not yet addressed, but oh well. I guess I still have problem about opening this GAR, and of course this will be the last GAR for now. Going to withdraw now, but the GAR could be reopened by someone soon if the article wasn't fixed yet.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 14:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)