Wikipedia:Peer review/Charizard/archive2

Charizard
Archive of previous Peer Review
 * Failed another FAC for neither here nor there reasons, mostly minor cleanup, and I'd liked some good editors to help with the problems, without mentioning reliable referencing. Cheers, H ig hway Daytrippers  12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you continue to misrepresent the situation? This has failed four FAC's. How do you think you are going to get different answers here? People have already pointed out the article's problems, why should they do so again? WP:V is non negotiable policy. What value is a peer review where you don't want people to mention the article's biggest problem, and one of the major reasons it failed the last FAC? Why not work on articles that do have reliable sources instead of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? - Taxman Talk 14:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to help the improve on the other issues with the prose, which is what Raul failed the article on. Are you going to be constructive, or keep Charizard-bashing? H ig hway Daytrippers  22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you know the exact reason for why Raul failed the latest nomination? Has he made any comments about it?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nifboy 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For those who haven't clicked the link, Raul said "So, to put it bluntly - I'm not sure." and called it a corner case. I would be more careful about using such an open-ended statement as an argument...
 * And I agree completely with Taxman's description of the dispute. The objections are being misrepresented and the nominator is doing his best to make this more personal than it is. The objectors have been trying to voice serious concerns about important interpretations of WP:V and most of the replies have been generally just been "You just hate Pokémon!" instead of any honest attempts to take the objections seriously. Not even attempts to compromise... I can't stress enough that getting so emotionally involved is unlikely to be beneficial to anyone.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I asked, are there anyways to improve the text of the article, which is what I'm addressing. H ig hway Daytrippers  09:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried suggesting two minor and rather reasonable improvements, but as with referencing, you don't seem to be to eager on receiving advice that differs with your personal opinion. Good luck loving this thing to death... / Peter Isotalo 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would happily accept adivce. The references just don't exist. H ig hway Daytrippers  10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Compensating the lack of academic citations with irrelevant trivia references will not solve the problem. The dictionary definitions have nothing to do with the statement. It's pure footnote padding. It's like saying we have to have a citation for the statement that Charizard is a fictional character or, in fact, a Pokémon. And does he really look like a European dragon...? Why, that's just your opinion. Citation! (See what I'm getting at?)
 * The insistance of keeping a "fictional stance" is also inexplicable and seems more protective than rational. Comparing one piece of fiction with another is not a problem. You don't need to weasel out of anything by adding an awkward "style" after a cultural reference. / Peter Isotalo 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up that section, the only reason the style was re-added was because you had changed the pluralization. H ig hway Daytrippers  14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)