Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bulbasaur/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | Bulbasaur

Bulbasaur

edit

After failing two FACs, this article is finally promoted to FA this weekend. 8 separate editors all voiced their comprehensive objections over this article regarding sources, comprehensiveness...etc, but none of these objections were addressed before making this into FA. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bulbasaur for a long-drawn out discussion. But here's the summary of major objections:

  • Fan page issue: this article is ALL plot summary and product information, written in a professional manner. The only information here is Bulbasaur's anime appearance, game appearance, and commerical availability. Actually one of the sources (website) is more comprehensive than this article in that aspect.
  • Sources issue: this article contains many dubious sources, and quotations taken out of context. Furthermore, commercial sites such as Amazon.com and personal or fan pages are used as sources.
  • Comprehensive issue: Even though this is about a fictional object, nothing is said about its development history, cultural impact, and other features a fictional object should have.

Thus I don't think it meets criteria 1 of FA, that it should exemplify our best work. So I am nominating Bulbasaur for removal. Temporary account 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This user has only made edits to FACs (and FARCs), except four to an article. --Celestianpower háblame 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so what? Does that make his objections any less credible and "actionable"? It does makes a stronger case for you to refuse to address the objections adequately alright. BlueShirts 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, and Celpwr only made significant contribution to Pokemon, that's ve-ry ve-ry fair. And for your information, All my objections AND supports AND comments are comprehensive, not one-liners or blind supports. Go check them if you want. Plus, it seems that BlueShirts knows more about FA than you do, he's got one FA already, and it's not nonsense like Bulbasaur. Give me a break. Temporary account 00:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, plus Remove Nom. This nomination is a clear violation of the rules of this page. It is solely an example of users who didn't get their way, and are seeking every means possible to achieve their ends. RyanGerbil10 20:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and remove as a clearly bad faith nomination. --Celestianpower háblame 20:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Remove Well I don't know what's the timeframe for this sort of thing but the article is obviously not FA quality. BlueShirts 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone had taken the time to read the FARC talk page, they would have seen that the rule of thumb for whether an FARC nomination is speedily removed due to recent promtion of the nominated article is two to three months, much more than the 16 hours that this article has been featured. This article is obviously FA quality, or Raul would not have chosen to promote it. This is a bad faith nomination resulting from certain users not getting their way, and nothing more. RyanGerbil10 21:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was just discussed, see here for a poll, where consensus seemed to be "no specific time limit", and here, in the section "Recently", where timing was discussed. This is a currently active area, and one of the points made was that there is no recourse to faulty FA promotions. The issues being disputed WERE brought up in no small way. No one is infallible, and creating weird areas of rigid inflexibility can't be good, especially in an open environment like this. --Tsavage 23:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As predicted, the long, long, drawn-out FARC has begun. My keep vote is based not on the quality of the article but that fact that it has recently been promoted. This article has gone through three FACs now, and was anything really being accomplished at the end? No. This FARC won't accomplish anything either. I understand that there are strong objections, but I think all parties would benefit by stepping away from this article for a while. Pagrashtak 21:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're saying there are strong objections (presumably, not strong but completely out of whack ones), then what is the point of participating in FAC only to step away from the promoted article? Doesn't it make sense to not promote and take a breather, isn't this what consensus/non-consensus is about? --Tsavage 23:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that the FAC process had dead-ended, nothing significant was happening to the article at the end, it was just a debate in which neither side was going to convince the other. The same thing will happen here. If this FARC succeeds, then we'll see an immediate FAC and the cycle will continue. Thus, I am suggesting that everyone should give this article a rest for a while. Look at some other FACs, help out with them. If you still want to pursue a FARC after a reasonable period, please be my guest. Take a look at the page, this is already the largest FARC despite being the most recent candidate and nothing constructive has happened to the article that I am aware of. Pagrashtak 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I totally understand what you're saying, and agree that being calm and reasonable is...admirable. I've also made suggestions like a cooling off period after FAC failure. Everyone wants to enforce a post-promotion cooling off, but that shouldn't even be a concern if FAC as well-handled. Renoms are much more of a taxing issue. And there are other concerns witih FA status. For example, articles are nominated in days, hours, minutes for TFA. Bulbasaur has been already (Raul654 said he'd let it lie for a while due to contentiousness). So PROMOTING means it becomes identified as one of the "best", AND likely put in front of tens or hundreds of thousands of visitors. IF there is a concern for quality (and that's why I participate in FAC), FA promotion isn't trivial. Opinions have been expressed along the lines of "a few bad ones get in, no biggie" and "my standards are lower than yours". I can't agree. Reasonable expectations as to writing quality, comprehensiveness, even refs quality is one thing (which I think I have), but just letting things slide is...not appealing to me. --Tsavage 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Normally one waits a few weeks before submitting a FARC, but eight unaddressed standing objections? Clearly an exception should be made when the promotion itself was in error. Andrew Levine 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Raul's reasoning (and, most importantly, the reasoning of the above users) and the fact that I can only see MINOR a few issues with the article, nothing too glaring. However, the MAIN reason why I'm voting to strong keep this is that it was recently promoted. I'm against fancruft, and this article has fancruft in it, for sure; HOWEVER, let Raul fully explain his reasoning first....Deckiller 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the reasoning almost insulting. Speaking for my objections alone, the references issues weren't at all addressed. Since I didn't strike them, either I'm just misguided and without a clue as to what a proper objection is, or, I was willfully not striking even though they were fixed. Both situations are bad faith assumptions, since I acticely responded and commented right to the end. An article built on fan pages and Amazon.com one-line summaries is not FA quality, and none of that was addressed in Raul's explanation. --Tsavage 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedily remove this nomination. This nomination breaks what the rules on this page clearly covers. "Before listing here, leave comments detailing the article's deficiencies on it's talk page, and leave some time for them to be addressed. Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period. Do not list articles that have recently survived removal attempts. Either listing is likely to be summarily removed.". Why this nomination hasn't been removed yet is only currently questionable. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 23:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) See the discussion about "recently", and the poll on FARC timing, both only a few days old, on the FARC talk page. 2) The "complaints" were brought up in FAC, in fact, they were entirely the substance of the objections, debated over many weeks. This is not a case of trying to come up with more reasons to spitefully attack a promotion, it is a complaint that the objections, from eight editors, were ignored. "Recently" is a non-specific guideline (perhaps for a reason?), certainly open to interpretation in situations like this. --Tsavage 23:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove For one, the references issue remains unresolved. The majority of sources are not credible by any reasonable standard, and are often misrepresented right from the first paragraph (CNN in no way was making any reasoned comparison of Bulbasaur and Carmen Miranda, yet it is a HIGHLIGHTED "fact" in this article; Time Asia did not call Bulbasaur a "lead critter"; again, first paragraph.) As noted in the nom, the discussion is in the FAC. The recent discussions (this week) in the Talk pages here and in FAC clearly indicate there is a problem with certain promotions, and there is no remedy for disputed FAC promotions. As it is, FARC is a poor substitute for good judgement in FAC, because the same apparently massed voting more easily holds sway here. It's a ridiculous situation that (despite the aforementioned Talk discussions) is being allowed to run wild, to the point where suppression (speedy delist) is a solution to what's supposed to be an editorial review process. --Tsavage 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tsavage: How utterly preposterous! Suppression indeed - have you read the rules? Tetsuya-san does a good job at quoting them - why don't you take a look? --Celestianpower háblame 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Eight outstanding objections - all of which were unactionable, barely-concealed "no Pokemon featured" sweeping statements. While Tsavage went to great lengths to dig up "dirt" on the article and Temporary account has been lampooning it from the beginning, they simply make false statements and misrepresent what the article says, attacking sources and contributers endlessly. They have called for "better referencing" when the referencing is clearly sufficient, "rewording" when the article was already very well written; the list goes on. This is an obvious attempt at pushing a defeated POV. (I also note that a Support-Oppose of 32-8 is 80% support, well above the standard 70% used a general guideline for what consensus is.) —Cuiviénen, 01:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the FAC at all? Failure to address objections does not mean that the objection is unreasonable or unactionable. I think it's easy to understand. Also, not all votes weigh the same. How many reluctant or blind or uncritical support this Bulbasaur got? How many comprehensive, detailed, reasonably critical objections this article got? YOU do the math. Temporary account 01:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION SPEEDY DELISTED - Do NOT put it back up. If there was ever an obvious place for the time rule, which still exists, this was it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Bulbasaur/archive1&oldid=1047492298"