Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crawdaunt/archive1

Crawdaunt

A lot of work has been put into improving this article. The article shows all of the major aspects of the subject such as role in video games, anime, and Pokémon TCG. It has a lot of references in compliance with 1.(C) of the FA criteria. It appears to be stable right now. Funpika 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the citations are incomplete, lacking access dates and such. Review {{cite web}}. Jay32183 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Task accomplished - The access dates of citations have been inserted. So there is no major flaw in the article now. It has a good flow, and per criteria, it is neutral, comprehensive and well written. It has no controversial content, so I hope it gets FA status. Vikrant Phadkay 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like refs 17, 18, and 19. Why is a fan site being used when the episodes themselves could be cited. See {{cite episode}}, and don't be afraid of citing a work of fiction directly when just repeating something from its plot. Jay32183 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Additionally, I don't like ref 7, to strategywiki.org. Gameshark.com is a more reliable source.~~ Jay32183 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Completed - the citation has been changed to a relevant page on [GameShark.com]. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now, the cite episode template doesn't ask for all details. The Serebii citation describes the episodes properly.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Secondly, I see no flaw in StrategyWiki. Still, replacing the citation is most welcome if a relevant page on Gameshark.com is found, and further it won't affect this article any great extent.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I meant to say is: Object, some of the sources you are using are unreliable fansites and user contribution sites that could easily be replaced by official sources. {{cite episode}} includes everything you would need for saying the information came from the episode, not all sources have to be websites. Wiki's are always unreliable as a source because they accept contributions from anyone. That's the reason Wikipedia can't be a source for Wikipedia. There are probably more refs that need replacement, but I'll need to review further. You can start with the changes I've suggested and I'll get back to you. Jay32183 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll do the {{cite episode}} templates later, if no one else wants to do it first. I'll also look through the rest of the citations ad see if there are any more that can be replaced with better ones. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. Jay32183 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Former citation number 4 was entirely irrelevant, and has been removed. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        {{cite video game}} may also be a useful template for replacing unreliable sources in this article. Jay32183 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: the {{cite episode}}-needing ref numbers are now 14, 15, and 16 (after removing irrelevant references), if anyone wants to get to it before I do. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - The sections are complete. And the article has taken great leaps forward. It covers the scope well, has suitable images and has all that is required in a Pokémon article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While it's without doubt a well-written article, by my view it's close to failing the 4th FA criterion (stays focused without going into unecessary detail) in the video games section: the examination of its types' strengths and weaknesses is a little lengthy (though not too bad), and the analysis of commonly taught moves, while very well written for what it is, isn't needed - a short mention of its potential versatility is probably sufficient. Once this is cleared up, I'm definitely in support of this nomination.

I don't think an ideal article should have incomplete information. And just naming moves is too techincal for an encyclopedia. So, the unique movepool has been described as it minimises the Pokémon's drawbacks, and any special traits of a Pokemon are very much acceptable here.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In strong agreement with the game guide material listed in the video games section. I expect to see the likes of SD/AA in Smogon movesets, but not here As a point of comparison, Bulbasaur doesn't delve into that amount of detail, while Torchic does seeem to kind of veer off a bit deep. Hbdragon88 07:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing like a game guide here. The species' major advantages and disadvantages have been stated as briefly as possible(and I've still shortened it some time back), so that all diverting and unnecessary details stay in the cited source.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe only one example type for each part, like "types such as the Fire type"? And we can't just say "other types have no advantage or disadvantage", because not every relevant type is listed - I'll change that right now. And the attacks section reads like a (well-written) battle strategy guide - it's just too much info, and even though the listed moves are contained in the source, the in-depth descriptions of how they help are not. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I think this article is as good as the other featured Pokémon articles! -- Sensenmann 15:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment - I just noticed that there's no section on manga appearances. Is this because it never appeared in the manga, or did someone just forget to put it in? ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some research on this is needed. Funpika 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Is "Agree" the same as "Support"? Funpika 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]