Wikipedia:Featured article review/Torchic/archive1

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

The article was removed 09:39, 13 April 2007.

Torchic[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at HighwayCello, Video games, Nintendo, and Pokemon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has horrible sources. It fails WP:N and (1c) of the FA criteria. Some references don't even back up the claims made. There are some references that don't mention the subject at all. User:A_Man_In_Black has highlighted some of the problems Here on the article's talk page. Funpika 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My commentary from talk, in toto:

This article is pathetically sourced, and seems to fail WP:N miserably. I was looking at the references closely, and they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Some highlights:

  • Many of the cited references don't even back up the claims made. For example, take the reference to [1]; this isn't cited as a source that Combusken is a flying Pokémon; it's cited as a source that it isn't a flying Pokémon. WTF?
  • The claim of the origin of the name, a debatable linguistic analysis, is sourced to a Pokémon fansite.
  • Reference #3 is directly to a Japanese-English dictionary, which makes no reference to Torchic at all.
  • At least a third of the references (I gave up counting) are to poorly-written, not-at-all-analytical anime episode summaries on Serebii.
  • The references to Gamespy, IGN, and Gamespot don't mention Torchic at all.
  • The article is laden with references to primary sources for facts of questionable importance. How are any of the toys important? Nobody has seen fit to comment on them but Hasbro. How is the recall important? The only party to comment is the recalling party.

Additionally, this article doesn't have a single word on the creative process that led to the creation of Torchic, nor a single word of sourced analysis or critical reception.

I'm not sure if this is FA quality. I'm not sure if this is GA quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThat creation point is unnecessary. And references need to be interpreted carefully as they might not be the citation for an entire statement, maybe only the last part. I added episode templates for the anime paragraphs, so it's time we stop questioning Serebii's quality and continue improving Torchic.

I have erased all the citations that are being manipulated for the sake of stating misconceptions and asserting vague facts like the flying type Torchic and Bulbasaur's seed. I also feel that the toys section is needed.

Talking about etymology, Pokedream is the only site that provides it. I don't mind if that citation is removed, but what is the debatable linguistics in torch + chick = Torchic? There is no dispute possible about the name unlike that of Lugia or Milotic, right? Vikrant Phadkay 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the comment about the article's notability - notability is not a consideration for the FA process. We inherently presume that all articles nominated are notable (FAC and FAR are not AFD and should not attempt to replicate its function). So that criticism is irrelevant. Raul654 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that the subject isn't notable, but that its sources don't allow for any sort of useful explanation of the importance of this subject. Would you not agree that an article that fails to explain how the subject of the article is important isn't a comprehensive article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the problems should be fixable. If there isn't any analysis in the anime or manga sections then the Serebii refs can be replaced by citing the episodes and issues directly. The comprehensiveness problem will probably be the hardest issue to tackle. Will there actually be sources about the creation or reception of Torchic, or any Pokemon other than Pikachu. This doesn't hold a candle to some of the other featured articles on fictional characters. Jay32183 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't solve the problem that this article is completely lacking in critical analysis from reliable sources, just the fact that Serebii isn't a great way to cite things. I don't think Torchic can actually support a comprehensive article; this is filled out with inane, empty fragments of fictional stories or settings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. I'd just like to push WP:PCP away from using Serebii as much as possible. Jay32183 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wondered about the reliability of Serebii before, given that I had been misled before in their gaming sections. I guess the issue hasn't died down yet. Hbdragon88 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every discussion seems to go....
  • Hey, is Serebii really a reliable source? It's run by one person, often has long-uncorrected errors, is a fansite, often doesn't update pages, etc.
    • So what else are we going to use?
      • ...
Thread gets archived
We need to actually do something about this, this time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That error totally screwed up my Gardevoir. I stopped EV training halfway before it would have completed (as I was under the impression that they would be doubled), so I have a personal vendetta against that place. (Fortunately, those EV reducing berries in Emerald fixed that problem). Hbdragon88 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let's keep discussion of serebii to a minimum - only what is pertinent to the article, we can discuss it further at the project page. For a rebuttal, if we were to guage accuracy with the amount of content that serebii covers (450+ anime epiguides; 3 advanced pokedexes for RBYGSC(251 pokemon), RSEFrLg(386), DP(493); 2 attackdexes (354 and 467); several detailed pages on game mechanics; complete item lists; walkthroughs and strategy guides for 29 games; not to mention the detailed lists on manga, movies, and the TCG) their error rate is probably as low as wikipedia's and wikipedia's is reportedly lower than Brittanica's and the errors eventually get fixed. There are several other issues, like this one that i brought up on Highway's talk page, which was never fixed. I guess he was trying to quote serebii epiguides to say that the show promotes people liking it because of its attractiveness, but the real arguable claim, "...Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal." is completely unsourced. In fact, a comparison is made to the previous fire starter (no Stephen King jokes) Charmander and the source isn't the one making the link, i think it is meant to establish the fact that Charmander's popularity has to due with aesthetic appeal, but that source is just some personal website gallery of Charmander merchandise. At least the Hasbro stuff is from a more legitimate website. Of course this is only one example. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Serebii isn't a reliable source not just because of the errors, but because of the source of those errors. Serebii is full of mistakes because it's one guy's fansite. It's not even close to independently reviewed. It's just not a reliable source.
It doesn't help that this article's relatively best references are to a fansite noted for being somewhat flakey among Pokémon fans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last spur was meant in jest, of course I'm not going to want to revoke Torchic's FA status merely because Serebii gave me incorrect game guide info (they're unrelated). But there are other outstanding issues with Serebii. AMIB is willing to argue them. I'm just in the background. Hbdragon88 07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serebii is a self-published source, therfore it fails to be a reliable source. The claims that nothing else could be used doesn't matter because if there isn't a reliable source then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Jay32183 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I picked a couple of Serebii citations at random. The first one: Synopsis of Pokémon Adventures manga; Chapter 183. "VS. Mightyena" Serebii.net. URL accessed 13 May 2006. -- shouldn't this be citing the the manga directly? There seem to be quite a few citations of this type. The second: Bulbasaur Pokédex entry - "A seed was planted on its back at birth. The plants sprouts and grows with this Pokémon." Serebii.net. URL accessed 5 July 2006. -- I don't see that quote on that page. Even if Serebii were a reliable source, there are still issues here. Side note: citation 6 is broken. Pagrashtak 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When no analysis is being performed then citing manga, anime, or the video games directly is perfectly acceptable. The lack of analysis may keep the article from being comprehensive, but that's no reason not to cite the most reliable source available. Jay32183 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With no analysis whatsoever, this article's prose is far from brilliant. It merely slaps together trivial scraps of plot and setting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be noted that a lot of things can be cited directly from the appropriate media - episode guides are a backing, but seeing as to their source, and some inaccuracies that could come in that source, it's best we stick to simply citing the media. Since Torchic is full of citations that could be attributed to media, that too, should be rectified. And, agreed with AMIB. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is all this happening?[edit]
  • Keep for sure - The article has been provided with all possible sources and if we keep questioning their reliability, the project will never get another FA and we'll rather lose this one and the other one too!

Never shall the official site give us episode guides, game guides, manga guides etc. So eventually either the project fails in its aims because of one criterion. Then why not introduce another two citations at all places where Serebii can't be relied on? Criticism is easy, after all!

The Internet has 1 billion web pages and none of them is 100% reliable; they are all 99.99999999.......%. Still those who don't rely can glide across Google and locate and compare many more sites. Or best is to play the game and clarify all the so-called doubts.

And all the minor problems with a few sources can be rectified with ease or removed presuming them as OR. There's absolutely no need to dethrone the article for that. Vikrant Phadkay 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about this is, if Torchic continues to fail to meet the requirements (as it has been doing even since its nomination) its position here should no longer be held. It fails attribution, the article itself isn't so well-written, and writing compatible sections isn't going to happen like magic. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, it was bad enough that when it appeared on the front page, editors immediately and consistently picked on its citation problems. Not very good at all. And this isn't a vote yet; it's a discussion to address the shortcomings that need to be addressed before we all either feel it's still eligible or whether we need to bring it up for removal. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, the internet is not the only resource. Serebii is not reliable by definition because it is a fan run website. The article's worst shortcoming is it's comprehensiveness, meaning the article is incomplete. There is no discussion of creation or reaction, which is required when discussing a fictional character. Jay32183 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns is quality of citations (1c). Marskell 10:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to additionally fail "comprehensive" (1b), as suggested in discussion. Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The prose does not seem brilliant; nor are the citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, the prose was always brilliant, it is once again and the citations are recovering their damage! Criticism is easy but patience and perseverance will soon pay off as I save this article. Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It appears that no attempts are being made to replace the unreliable sources, such as Serebii. Jay32183 02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here come the attempts (most of them are accomplished). Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will still be remove per 1b. No discussion of the character/species concept and creation and no analysis of its role in the games/anime/manga means the article is not comprehensive, and you won't find reliable sources for that content. Jay32183 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. It's not at all our fault that unreliable sources aren't being replaced, because there aren't any others that source all the information in the article. But that doesn't make it featured material. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • if it's not our fault then why refrain from saving our FA? Improve the sources! How long does it take? Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Support is gradually building to deal with individual Pokémon as components of an encyclopedic whole, instead of trying to force the treatment of them as individual subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as per users A Man In Black and Jay32183. Citations aren't good at all, and the efforts are low on improving it and the prose, the lack of commentary on what was suggested, or anything else. It's deadbeat. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above Hbdragon88 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove — 1a, 1b, 1c.
  • There is no out of universe information. How was the character created? Cosplay? How was the pokemon received by critics? I suggest looking at Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. If you can find translated interviews from Japanese magazines (which is about as reliable as we can get due to these topics being from Japan, translation reliabilities aside; work with what you can for the subject at hand, because people will understand if you can't exactly find a new york times interview, heh) or secondary analyses that in turn cite sources, then 1b will be met. If not even a borderline reliable/self-published source (which may be fine in relation to this subject) can be found with out of universe information, then this needs to be transwikied, then compressed and merged into a article about this generation of Pokemon. I don't have a problem with most the sources being used, to be honest; it's the fact that if you're using this level of sources (which is probably quite accurate in relation to this subject), why not find out of universe material at least on this level?
  • Prose issues throughout.
  • 1c. Some of the sources are just plain unreliable, like fansites. Usually, the only things good from fansites are sourced analyses with an author and contact, and interviews with contact information or sources (were they taken from a magazine? if no source is provided and its a fan-run interview, I recommend not using it to be safe). We must be careful when using fansites. — Deckiller 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That creation thing is unnecessary. Where on earth will we find information about it? If anyone can write that, either he's Satoshi Tajiri or he should be showered by barnstars. Vikrant Phadkay 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove.' Unacceptable sources. Thank god people are considering that rationally now. - Taxman Talk 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Hell yeah, take the source 14 for example. What the hell? I have to read the book to get a source? TheBlazikenMaster 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • yes, if a book is cited YOU MUST READ IT and if an episode is cited YOU MUST WATCH IT. Vikrant Phadkay 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are citations such that they cant be improved? I prefer ending this nomination and putting a cleanup tag on the article so as its quality recovers.Vikrant Phadkay 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number 14 is good. It's the over reliance on websites that's causing the problem in this article. Jay32183 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: That's not a valid grounds for declaring Remove; note 14 is to a magazine article. It's correctly sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I admit it is idiotic reason for deletion. But my vote is still remove, per the rest of remove voters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 18:18, April 10, 2007[2]
    • It is theoretically possible that there might be a way to improve the citations. However, that would require a rethink of the entire method of sourcing Pokemon articles, so it's not some trivial matter that can be fixed fast enough to keep it a FA. -Amarkov moo! 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove due to source issues. Pagrashtak 23:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I need to point out that a lack of reliable sources does not excuse a lack of comprehensiveness. That does mean that certain articles can never be FAs, and we may need to reconsider whether they should have been their own articles in the first place. Jay32183 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's being done with Pokemon articles, at least; the long standing idea of merging them is getting attention now. -Amarkov moo! 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, don't do it. Think about it, if all pokémon would be merged into one article, the article would either be too long or too unspecific. It also wouldn't make sense. Besides, in my opinion they are encyclopdia articles. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not one article, of course. But we have large numbers of Pokemon that are simply not notable, with zero sources. Some aren't even discussed on Serebii, because nobody cares about them. -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think any article about pokémon will be merged any time soon. Whismur is one of these so-called nonnotable. And guess what? It did survive an AfD. TheBlazikenMaster 08:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Completely fails to meet 1a, and is not really meeting 1b or 1c, either. More than anything, I would ask any supporter of the article remaining an FA to read a really high-quality FA (look at Joan of Arc for just one example) and compare the quality of prose. Oh man, this article is not all that interesting, it's not altogether informative, and it's maybe, maybe a GA. But certainly not an FA. Sanity will prevail. (Phadkay, your efforts to improve the article are appreciated and useful and helpful, regardless of whether or not the article remains an FA. Nicely done.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Torchic/archive1&oldid=1128197105"