Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pikachu/1

Pikachu

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: List as GA. Issues raised have been fixed, and closing this discussion is long-overdue. Geometry guy 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. Homestarmy (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated WP:FICT? -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... Homestarmy (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... Homestarmy (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or it might have been WP:WAF - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there must be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that "pop culture sections" are supposed to show the cultural impact/influence of Pikachu, and that's supposed to be the "meat" of the notability of the article?? -Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be nice if that's what they were used for, wouldn't it? But that's a conversation for another day... Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist. Doesn't show the notoriety of the character, and written in a very in-universe style for the "Biological characteristics" section.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Relist until Sweeps come and do a detailed review. Read the whole article, and you'll see that it does relate to real-world (such as trading card game, parade mascot). Even an airplane featured pikachu (Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, so do you think it's important? OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing.  I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar?  As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The in-universeness of the "Biological characteristics" has been given a going over, and a scholarly source has been provided to say that Pikachu is the most popular Pokemon. Sex differences have been sourced, and the article has been tagged with fact tags at various places.  The stricter WP:FICT is currently being disputed. -Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that WP:FICT is a guideline, not a policy. It should be "treated with common sense and occasional exception". Common sense tells us this article is important and in good quality, even though it was written slightly "in-universe". OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This same article was already reviewed in September (archived GAR) for exactly the same reasons. The article seemed fine to me then, and still does. Drewcifer (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This article has been improved. I think it meets WP standards now. Geometry guy 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)