Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon Channel/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Pokémon Channel[edit]

Pokémon Channel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behold, one of the least respected Pokémon games around, and potentially the first FA to actually include "Pokémon" in its name! I began work on this article in late January, when I'd just returned from semi-retirement. It passed GAN and completed a peer review the following month, so here's its final step. All comments are welcome. Tezero (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment by Chris857
  • "Leeper claimed that 'will be content much longer than you will' and..." - this isn't making grammatical sense to me, and I'm not sure what it is trying to say. Chris857 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Why is Chao mentioned in the gameplay? How is it useful to anyone without specialist knowledge of the Sonic series? I've played Sonic, and have no idea what Chao are, the general reader is going to be even more perplexed.
    • If I run down Metacritic's reviews, quite a lot of them mention how it's a kids' game or aimed at children. You mention it's rated E, and a 1UP review mentions five year olds, but I would expect more on the kids' response.
      • More on the kids' response? What do you mean? Tezero (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reviews mention whether the game is any good for children. Mention that more. - hahnchen 18:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gotcha. I'll get to that later today, I think. Tezero (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would find it hard to support any Japanese game without any Japanese reception.
      • hahnchen 18:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't find any earlier, but now I see some forum posts remarking that it got a 31/40 from Famitsu. I'm currently digging about for that review. Tezero (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, I found a reliable link. Tezero (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, digging through old Famitsu articles, I found another piece of Japanese sales info. Still nothing at all for American sales, though. Tezero (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tezero: Comments from User:Nicereddy
    • I apologize that I took so long to come look at this, I've finally gone through and read the article over and have a few things I've noticed. Everything else seems great to me.
    • For the purpose of future-proofing and avoiding Link rot, I would recommend you add archives of all the web citations you include in the article. I've done this on Team Fortress Classic, for example. The cite web template has a few parameters for including archived references. A lot of featured articles lose their featured article status over time due to link rot, and that'd be fairly unfortunate for this.
    • Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, an article already considered "Featured", has quotes from the game's developer commentary in a "Notes" section rather than a "References" section. Since you use a lot of quotes from the game itself, I figured I'd point this out. I'm not sure if that's Wikipedia policy, but I personally think it looks better and is easier to read through. I would recommend using superscripted "a", "b", etc. instead of "N 1", "N 2", etc. as Lost Coast does, however.
      • It's not standard, and I notice that the quotes used in Lost Coast are quite lengthy. I'll still do it if you want, though, as this article does cite a fairly high number of quotes. Not sure if that'll change how much has to be cited in each quote, though. Tezero (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead is the following sentence: "Upon release, it sold rather poorly—66,373 copies in its first year—and received mixed reviews[...]". I think modifying the parenthetical to say "only 66, 373 copies" or something similar may be preferable. I don't completely like the use of "only", and can't think of anything better, so I'll leave the change up to you.
      • Reworded to "a meager 66,373 copies". How's that? Tezero (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Development and release" section, there's the following line:
      • IGN writer Anoop Gantayat called this effect "cool", although he did note some minor graphical issues visible in the transition from distanced to full-screen viewing.
    • I would recommend changing this, as "cool" doesn't seem like a particularly noteworthy quote to have mentioned in the prose of the article.
    • In the first part of the "Reception" section, dates are mentioned but no year is given for context. This is a bit odd, as it also says "[Pokemon Channel] has sold 66,373 copies as of December 28.", which implies that the game came out this year due to the usage of "has". I can probably fix this quite easily, so if it's changed by the time you read this that'd be why.
    • In the second-to-last sentence of the "Reception" section, there's a sentence which says only "Tokyodrifter thought similarly." I think it would be best if this was extended by changing it to "Tokyodrifter thought similarly, stating *quote here*." or something similar.
  • Assuming these are fixed, I can add my support to the article, albeit noting that I have done some minor copyediting to the article previously. Again, great job on this article! --Nicereddy (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'll get to these tomorrow, as I'm finishing up the skeleton of a new Sonic character article and then I've got to get my eyes away from the computer before they start bleeding. Thanks for reviewing, though! Your comments all seem fair, although as for link rot, my impression is that any dead link can be archived after it goes bad, except for those with "robots.txt" files, which run into similar archive problems after the fact. Does that make a difference? Tezero (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. Once a link dies, assuming it wasn't archived prior to the site going down, it's not retrievable. Robots.txt just prevents it from being archived whatsoever. Archival requires that the site currently be up the second at which you request it to be archived. I've been surprised by the amount of GameSpot articles which I was the first to archive, so I try to archive as many as I can just in case the site were to ever go down. As for articles which are already archived, it's just easier if you add it now and include "dead link=no", that way it can easily be replaced if the site ever went down. --Nicereddy (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I meant retrieved after it goes bad; generally sites I use are archived by web.archive.org - some can't be, though, which is why I avoid using video reviews and interviews or graphics-intensive sites. But yeah, I guess I'll get to that. Tezero (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did as well, I've had to manually retrieve GameSpot and IGN articles for archive.org, and I was the first one to do so. I've archived at least two dozen articles over the past month in my Valve sweep. --Nicereddy (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • The 1UP articles may be gone forever. That's not too bad here, as only a review is cited, and only for one sentence in Reception, so it can be easily removed. How should I go about archiving the rest, though? (Ugh. Can't bots do this?) Tezero (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if bots can do it, as I'd imagine someone would have done so by now if it was possible. I can go through right now and see if I can get archives of them all, it's not too difficult once you've gotten used to doing it, as I've done it on 10~ pages already. --Nicereddy (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're okay with doing that, great. I'll just comment out the 1UP stuff for now. Tezero (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you! As for Allgame, I doubt this would be reliable, but I'll throw it out there anyway: what about screencapping the review and putting it on Imgur or something? Tezero (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Too easy to abuse, I think. Plus it'd be potential copyright infringement. I wouldn't recommend it. --Nicereddy (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah. Should I proactively try to switch in references that could stand in for Allgame in the non-Reception prose, or do I have your support? Tezero (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's perfectly fine, as they're only a few references and I requested it primarily out of fear of sites going down in the far future, not necessity at present or in the near future. --Nicereddy (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Gotcha. Well, thanks for your assistance. Tezero (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I will note that I've contributed to this article in the form of copyediting as well as archival of references. Regardless, I hope this doesn't make my support worth any less. The article covers all bases I would expect of an article on a video game, and goes further in specific items relating to the game, such as the e-Reader. The article is written from a neutral perspective, not overly negative nor positive towards the topic. The article is on a game released more than a decade ago, and is therefore not the subject of any notable editing conflicts, and the topic is unlikely to change with much significance in the future. The article's prose is of expected quality for a featured article and the grammar lacks any mistakes, at least that I could find in my multiple sweeps through the article. The references all follow the same structure and cite sources which have been deemed legitimate by the Video games WikiProject. The game, given its general lack of notability in comparison to that of other Nintendo titles, is vastly better than I would have expected.
  • In lieu of that, I give my support in favor of the article's promotion. --Nicereddy (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Pokémon_Channel_Coverart.png: source link is dead and FUR should be far more extensive than it is currently.
  • Same with File:PokemonChannelQuizWobbuffet.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll fix this later today. Please, no one oppose for this; I'm just on my iPod now with mediocre Wi-Fi to boot. Tezero (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, they should be good now. Tezero (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from czar[edit]

Resolved responses to the review have been moved to the talk page

Please respond below the review and I'll hat my bullets after your reply. Some questions are rhetorical and I'm not expecting answers here but clarification in the article.

  • copyedited, in lieu of lots of small suggestions
  • The intro sentence is precious—why waste space with "Together with Pikachu" twice?
  • Lede could use some more beef in the development, release, and reception departments, perhaps a sentence of the latter and former, and is there a specific reason for excluding the full release date?
  • {{Video game release}} formatting is looking wonky with its line spacing. I don't know what's going on there, but a different format might help
  • |media= is only for platforms where the media can be ambiguous
  • "among the network's channels": what network?
  • "their house": who is they?
  • I don't know whether the show titles should be italicized. They might be better in quotes or plain title case since they're not real shows
  • "art that can be created elsewhere": this is unclear
  • What's going on with the commented out text in Gameplay?
  • Consider using list-defined refs in the future—would make me more inclined to give a thorough copyedit
  • "When it arrives the next morning": when what arrived? the new or the old?
  • Significance of the inclusion of Meowth's Party?
  • "for which the device is intended": the device or the projector?
  • Did the devs know it was bad?
  • Does the development of Meowth's Party have anything to do with the development of this game? Meowth's Party might be best merged somewhere such as this section, if so
  • "new templates": template for what?
  • "was unusual at the time": citation needed
  • "the abstract cries": clarify
  • "Its development was rather rapid": source doesn't say this, removed
  • What is the imperative to add the ratings? I haven't seen that usually done
  • If the release dates are adequately sourced here, the footnotes should be removed from the infobox
  • April date should include the year if it isn't the same as the others—not obvious that it's the following year unless it is explicitly indicated (and sourced) as the last release
  • "thirteenth best-selling game": is this for that single week or for all GCN games ever's release weeks?
  • "Overall, the title": over where? the world?
  • There's a lingering, commented-out 1up review in the Reception
  • Watch out for OR in the reception: "principal complaint"? Let the reviews speak for themselves
  • Punctuation in quotations was messed up in this section. Whomever wrote it may be interested in reading through the MOS on how the logical/British quotation works
  • Reviewers should not be named without their publication because they're not characters to be remembered. Whenever someone reads a surname, they'll be trying to link it with the publication, so save the work
  • A number of quotes here can be paraphrased in non-quoted language
  • What's up with "Tokyo Drifter"? Is this person a real GamePro staff member? What's the deal?
  • Also Tokyo Drifter is two words, not one
  • Avoid "comma gerund" constructions (e.g., ", claiming")
  • "praise of a few aspects": clarify
  • "limited praise to": qualify? better described with the author's words than in potential OR
  • "agreed that they are limited": cl
  • "the Pokémon Mini play": cl
  • Yeah, a number of these Reception quotes can go
  • {{Video game reviews}} does not meet its documentation's rules: too many sources listed, shouldn't mention sources unmentioned in the prose
  • Speaking of this, where are the print sources?
  • Haven't done source or media check

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 06:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seen. I'll be in the car most of today but will probably get to these tonight. Tezero (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I think I've addressed all of your concerns that you yourself didn't. How does it look now? Tezero (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I restored my original review (I originally asked to not comment inline, per last bullet of Template:FAC-instructions#below) so I moved your responses below. I'll move stuff to the talk page as we go. czar ♔ 20:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro sentence is precious—why waste space with "Together with Pikachu" twice?
  • Lede could use some more beef in the development, release, and reception departments, perhaps a sentence of the latter and former, and is there a specific reason for excluding the full release date?
  • |media= is only for platforms where the media can be ambiguous
  • "among the network's channels": what network?
    • The one Oak's created. Tell me if you think the text implies that there are others. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be explained since it's the first mention in the prose ♔
  • "their house": who is they?
    • Singular they; the player. I'm not a huge fan of this wording, but it's common among Wikipedia articles of all quality ratings. I've changed it to "the player's", but this seems even worse. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way to avoid this would be establishing that the player is in a house beforehand and just refer to it as "the house" ♔
  • "art that can be created elsewhere": this is unclear
Needs more—what kind of art is this? Paint by numbers? This is the place to explain ♔
  • Significance of the inclusion of Meowth's Party?
    • It's important because it's shown at the end of the game and, as media for the projector, is part of the player's reward for beating the game. I mention it earlier as it appears earlier. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's worth establishing why it's significant, no? Right now it's just a name in a list ♔
  • Does the development of Meowth's Party have anything to do with the development of this game? Meowth's Party might be best merged somewhere such as this section, if so
A different discussion, but it may be worth merging into Space World or GameCube unless there are other sources for it ♔
  • "new templates": template for what?
    • Outlined drawings - the things Smeargle gives you. I agree that "new templates" isn't the best wording, but I'm unsure how to rephrase it. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This goes with the previous comment that the "art" component should be explained in more depth, if it's worth including at all ♔
  • "was unusual at the time": citation needed
    • The full quote: "The game uses a cool effect where it applies video footage to a polygon, allowing you to view a video program on the television monitor while watching Pikachu go crazy. Viewing the video full screen results in some artifacts, but most of the programming is done using polygons anyway, so you probably won't notice the difference too much." Is there a way to rephrase my summary of this so it doesn't sound like OR? Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say it's novel or unusual, so you can't say that in the prose or the lede. I say strike it ♔
  • "the abstract cries": clarify
    • Cries that don't sound like the Pokémon's names. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a Pokémon cry is, but you have to assume a reader wouldn't. These review questions are more rhetorical—you have to assume the perspective of someone unfamiliar ♔
  • "Its development was rather rapid": source doesn't say this, removed
    • I figured it was inherent as the game was still early on in development close to its release. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still would be OR unless the RS says it, no? I'd stick with the "five-months" or whatever it is and let the reader conclude from the relayed facts that it's a speedy development ♔
  • What is the imperative to add the ratings? I haven't seen that usually done
    • It happens sometimes; it makes some sense in context due to the game's unusually nonexistent amount of violent content. Should they go? Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I say so—they don't add much ♔
  • "thirteenth best-selling game": is this for that single week or for all GCN games ever's release weeks?
    • For that single week, but among all games in Japan. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider putting the review info before the sales data in the paragraph ♔
  • There's a lingering, commented-out 1up review in the Reception
    • I know. 1UP went online again recently after a period of inactivity, but since it uses the infamous robots.txt file it can't be archived. Should I remove it? Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The site's back up, no? I wouldn't let that stop you and would include it until it goes dead forever. There were some other archive techniques mentioned in the WTVG thread. ♔
  • Watch out for OR in the reception: "principal complaint"? Let the reviews speak for themselves
  • Punctuation in quotations was messed up in this section. Whomever wrote it may be interested in reading through the MOS on how the logical/British quotation works
  • Reviewers should not be named without their publication because they're not characters to be remembered. Whenever someone reads a surname, they'll be trying to link it with the publication, so save the work
    • I've seen numerous GAs and FAs do this, and a past FAC of mine actually took it as a strike against the article that the reviewers were not repeatedly referred to by name rather than publication. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you remember which one? I can see a reviewer asking to not refer to a whole source instead of a single reviewer, but as long as it's "X mag's Joe Smith" I don't think it should be a problem. This can be rephrased creatively, but my point is that the surnames by themselves don't help me ♔
  • A number of quotes here can be paraphrased in non-quoted language
    • Paraphrased the ones whose wording didn't seem striking. Tezero (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's up with "Tokyo Drifter"? Is this person a real GamePro staff member? What's the deal?
    • That's what the source says. I know it's a professional review by them, as it was linked by Metacritic and has no spelling or grammar errors or fancruft to indicate that it was a fan's work. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still uncomfortable with it, but nothing worth holding over ♔
  • Also Tokyo Drifter is two words, not one
It's in the last line of the source. The byline has it as one word, but it's two everywhere else on the Internet ♔
  • Avoid "comma gerund" constructions (e.g., ", claiming")
    • I think I took out a couple. There aren't many, though, and where I do use them, I think they appropriately break up monotony of the text. Tezero (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had edited most out, but I just wanted to point it out for the future ♔
  • "praise of a few aspects": clarify
"FMV": clarify ♔
  • "agreed that they are limited": cl
    • Original quote: "The graphics are suitably bright and colorful, although overall locations are somewhat limited." Ideas? Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strike it. When reviewers use vague language like that, it means they aren't clear themselves ♔
  • "the Pokémon Mini play": cl
    • Playing games on the virtual Pokémon Mini. I can't say I see why that's ambiguous. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does it mean the incorporation of the PM? Right now, the "play" is vague ♔
  • Yeah, a number of these Reception quotes can go
    • Done with the rewording, if that's enough. Do you mean Reception's too detailed? Tezero (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not too detailed, just excessive with the direct quotes. Looks better but I haven't read closely yet ♔
  • {{Video game reviews}} does not meet its documentation's rules: too many sources listed, shouldn't mention sources unmentioned in the prose
    • Added something from Nintendo Power. As for Famitsu, hahnchen insisted earlier that a Japanese reviewer be listed, but I can't find the original review or any promising leads to it. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try asking around for the sources you need ♔
  • Speaking of this, where are the print sources?
    • Game Informer and Nintendo Power, but in the latter case I was only citing what Metacritic gave me. The game doesn't seem to have been very well documented in print sources. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's so much other coverage that I'm not going to linger on it, but it's worth a bit more digging methinks ♔

czar ♔ 20:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to your issues, since you don't want me to reply in-line (I really wish I'd read through your comments top-to-bottom, as I have to move mine now):

  • Re: {{Video game reviews}}: Neither of the users who owns it as listed at our reference library is active, although one made a couple of edits earlier this month so I'll ask him anyway. Tezero (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: reviewers' names: I'm pretty sure it was Shadow the Hedgehog (video game). As I recall, it went something like "publications don't have opinions; reviewers do." Tezero (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't find anything in the Shadow FAC noms. Anyway, I think you get where I'm coming from on the readability. I'm not going to hold up the nom, but I think this can be phrased to better relate the surnames to the sources ♔
  • Re: Pokémon cries: I figured "abstract" would be good enough for that, but since you don't, I've rephrased it. Tezero (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "rather than the cries" part isn't in the source, so it's worth ending that sentence after mentioning that they speak their own names like in the anime ♔
  • Re: Meowth's Party: I'm not sure what you mean by "a name in a list." The video's two mentions are both in regular prose, in sentences that aren't in list format, and the link doesn't redirect to a list. Tezero (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be an extraneous detail, shoehorned in, as in I don't see the significance of mentioning it (and it's kind of unclear how it ties in with Pichu Bros.) Anyway, it's not blocking my support, but it's worth considering ♔
  • Done everything else you said. Tezero (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Czar: Sesu Prime (talk · contribs), whom I asked about Nintendo Power, doesn't have access to his issues. That said, neither of us seems to think the article is too lacking without them. What do you think of the article now? Tezero (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have an online acquaintance who might be able to dig it up—let me check. Also feel free to respond in-line—I just wanted to keep the original review intact. czar ♔ 02:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on my talk page, that search was unsuccessful. I still think it'd help but I don't think the article suffers for completeness as is without it. I responded inline and feel free to respond inline below. czar ♔ 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the "lit." part in the lede if it's already said and bolded previously? ♔
  • Hah, I don't know how it got like that. Fixed. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many sources listed in {{vg reviews}} (I think it's supposed to be something like five or so? Check the documentation) ♔
  • The documentation mentions that most will need 5-6 reviews, but also that less variance in reviews equals less need. Channel received hugely varying reviews, ranging from 1/5 to 31/40. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma inside quotes in Reception second sentence—never goes inside on WP per British/logical quotation rules ♔
  • Huh. I'm pretty sure I didn't do that myself; it must've come from someone's copyedit. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not going to repeat the mag names with the reviewer names, for clarity? ♔
  • "Leeper" is repeated as is, and I don't know the Nintendo Power writer's name as what's there just came from Metacritic. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game was developed rather quickly": rephrase with the actual time frame ♔
  • Well, I don't know. IGN stated, on a date only a few months from its release, that its development wasn't very far along. Is that an OR-y enough statement that I should scrap it from the lead entirely? Tezero (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a single source and not a strong statement, I say stick with the facts. Five months or whatever it is should speak for itself. The time IGN estimated it took for them to make the demo doesn't mean the game was developed quickly, but the five months time frame does ♔
  • Is first mention of "network" a "television" network? Would be worth clarifying that first time ♔
czar image review and source spot check[edit]
  • Box art is fine, though its size can be reduced more. I tagged to remove previous version of non-free file
  • It'd be nice to add in the Source fields that the screenshot/box art comes from the game as well as the external link
  • Fair use screenshot is fine, small
  • Free use e-reader is ugly but, hey, I didn't design it. Permission is fine


  • 48 ✓
  • 6 "decent use of Pokémon voices", "For what it is, the graphics are decent"→is this "praise"?
  • "Small house" doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article.
  • I actually can't find a single source that actually mentions the house being small; it was just deemed necessary somewhere in this FAC (I'm too lazy to look) that I had to say this. Nonetheless, the sources talk about exploring the one room and the outdoor environments with no acknowledgements of further rooms in the house (e.g. "Additionally, you're also able to leave the confines of your room--if Pikachu will let you--so that you can explore your front and backyards."). I'm not sure what to do. Tezero (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
House doesn't have to be "small"—the mention before was about how the text assumed the reader knew the game was in a house. I didn't see the house mentioned at all in this article (just rooms). Did I miss it or is it worth quoting a different review? ♔
It's late and I'm not about to spend ages looking for a mention of that. If I were to remove it, though, how could I? Tezero (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't spend ages but since it's the basic setting for the game, it'd be worth mentioning (and citing from a source that supports it) ♔
  • Why is this used as a source for the game taking place over several days? It doesn't appear to be mentioned.
  • Removed. Now that I look, I don't think the other two sources note the game taking place over a few days, either, although there are cited plot points that establish a few individual mornings. Tezero (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He didn't say "detailed and pleasing" but "better"
  • 54 Remove EGM cite unless it's going to be used
  • 45 link cable, European players not even mentioned
  • It says "Ruby / Sapphire - Pokémon Colosseum bonus disk (US) / Pokémon Channel (EU)". Tezero (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then the text should say that too, no? Or at least cite an article that says the bonus disk and Channel are connected with a link cable ♔
Amazingly, I found a reliable article that confirms it. (Took until the seventh page of Google, too!) Tezero (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 47 ✓
  • can't check the game quotes

czar ♔ 03:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. I made comments above this review section as well, too, in case you missed them czar ♔ 03:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry; yeah, I saw those. The only one of those with something for me to fix, I did. Tezero (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After the diligent tweaks, I believe this article meets the FA standards and is the single best resource on the web for this ostensibly steaming pile of Pokémon. Job well done. czar ♔ 12:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by PresN[edit]

  • Why is IGN and Famitsu never linked?
  • And... that's it. All your sources are known RSs.
  • Some of the inline cites are not in increasing order (e.g. you have [4][3][6], not [3][4][6]). Just a minor thing.
  • Spotchecks:
  • "The collectibles can be found by having Pikachu speak with other Pokémon and help them with tasks,[6]" - source says you just answer trivia questions.
  • "five others previously released for the real-life Pokémon Mini (three of them as part of its Pokémon Party Mini title).[10]" - source just lists 5 games for the Mini, it says nothing about those games being in Pokemon Channel.
    • I had the Amazon page for Pokémon Party Mini or something, but it was determined that those aren't reliable and I never found a replacement. Eh, it's not a particularly useful fact anyway, so I just removed it. Tezero (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No other issues found. --PresN 20:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PresN: how do you feel now?
  • Support as nominator. I don't really see the point of this practice, but it seems to help nominations and I've gotten very little feedback lately considering that the users who haven't given their support also don't have any outstanding complaints left. Tezero (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tezero: You might want to just mention all their usernames in this thread, or comment on their Talk pages. I'm guessing they've just lost this page in their sea of Watchlisted articles, I've done that frequently and my Watchlist isn't even particularly lengthy. --Nicereddy (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Already done with czar, but here goes: @Hahnchen:, @PresN: Tezero (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Declarations of support by nominators don't actually count when it comes to determining consensus to promote, it's assumed you wouldn't bring it to FAC unless you believed it worthy. Don't panic, there is enough recent activity and enough support to make it worth keeping open a bit longer as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Ian Rose: by that do you mean that if it closed now it would pass? Tezero (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I hate to bother you again, but are you satisfied with the changes I made? I don't want the nomination to get archived for a silly reason like not getting enough feedback from reviewers. Tezero (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The above was just a source review, not a full review, but after reading through the article and checking the changes made in response to the other reviewers I'm fine with supporting this one now. --PresN 02:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: Looks mostly good to me (although I don't do much work above C-class articles and this is my first FAC discussion, so not sure how much my say matters in this), but the primary references are a big block to me: 36 (by my count) out of 58 are directly from the game itself. Two smaller issues: There's quite a few simple sentences (I combined a few, but copyediting's not my forte, feel free to revert if need be), and the article never says what a Pokémon cry is (I've got no idea how to add that in without it being really awkward). Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the primary references are there to verify the plot. It's not universal, but it's common among plot sections for games. Your copyedits look fine. As for the cries, I agree that that'd be nice to mention (and there was something there before), but it'd also be WP:OR. Thanks for your support, though, and tell me if you come up with any more issues. Tezero (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since the first-party sources are fine for the plot, then I'm Supporting this for sure!
I thought it'd be easy, but the better part of an hour has only showed me this website to define a Pokemon cry so as to not violate WP:OR: <ref>{{cite web | title=What You Need to Know About the Pokemon PokeDex App for iOS | url=http://ds.about.com/od/nintendods101/a/What-You-Need-To-Know-About-The-Pokemon-Pokedex-App-For-Ios.htm | author=Nadia Oxford | publisher=About.com}}</ref>. It's talked about everywhere, but nobody seems to want to explain what it is. Heck, I couldn't even find anything about it in the Emerald or FireRed/LeafGreen player's guides from Nintendo Power! This is probably the most frustrating part of Wikipedia: Knowing something, but not being able to find a source to back it up. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Okay, rant's over :D[reply]
Resolved comments from Red Phoenix let's talk...

Comments from Red Phoenix let's talk...:

  • "In Japan, the game sold a meager 66,373 copies" - Calling it meager sounds like POV pushing without a perspective being defined. I'd just remove the meager part.
  • Reference 56, from Nintendo Power: Do we have an article title at all for where this comes from?
  • " Also unusual for the Pokémon video game series, the Pokémon's voices are lifted from the anime and sound like their names." - Are lifted? A different term might work better here, as "lifted" I feel is somewhat an improper term. Perhaps "borrowed" or "taken" might be a better word.
  • No other concerns. This is pretty close. Red Phoenix let's talk... 16:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There's definitely been a lot of work here to bring this up. I'm more than glad to support at this point. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great efforts into this article! I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 19:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pokémon_Channel/archive1&oldid=1138469159"