Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pikachu/2

Pikachu

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Weak keep. This article has been brought to reassessment many times now, but seems to hover forever at the borderline. I hope someday someone takes pity on it and brings it to featured article status. Meanwhile, there is yet again no consensus to delist. Geometry guy 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't feel very informative per se, more accurately how the article is organized and fleshed out. Many bits of information feel more peppered through the article than emphasized as actual points, and there are a few citation tags in there too it seems, not to mention some blocks without references. Fair-use imagery usage is a bit troubling too; the box for the video game for example references the anime before the anime is even discussed. The card doesn't bring anything of use to the table either, as all pokemon at this point have been printed in card form. The prose really needs an overhaul too at this point. It's a decent article and should be B-class, but really doesn't seem like it should remain GA at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm kind of disappointed this article still uses the old Poké-template organization. While it worked as well as could be expected for the other hundreds of now-merged articles, doesn't feel right when applied to the most famous of them all. Just a gut feeling I have. Nifboy (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I honestly think this article would benefit from being delisted, but I'm not sure it is blatantly outside the GA criteria. I have issues with the FU images and with the coverage but nothing that I would just fail an article for. If I reviewed this today for GAN, I would probably put it on hold with a page of recommendations. I am, however, not inclined to delist it just based on that fact. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is only one "citation needed" tag, and I believe that could be adequately addressed by using the previous cite. I also don't see a major error with the organization of the article. It is written in a standard way: Concept and Creation, Characteristics, Appearances, and Real-world impace/history. Everything seems to be there, perfectly cited. If you could give some examples of the "peppering", that would be great.

I'll have to look through it again, though I think I mistook a bit in there as a cite tag, so I'm going to go ahead and retract that statement.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think the card image should stay. I'll be bold and remove it. The prose isn't the best, I agree, but certainly good enough for GA? There are many GA articles out there with even worse prose. --haha169 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is what Nifboy talking bout but im not sure, anyway shouldnt the infobox be changed from the Pokemon species infobox template to VG character template. The current template is incredible in-universe. Salavat (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But remember, Pikachu isn't just a video game character. In fact, it is more famous for its appearances in the anime, so I'm not sure if a video game character template would be appropriate. Artichoker[talk] 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Nifboy's refering to I think is the structure of the article rather than the infobox.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh yeh i forgot to consider the TV show. So then shouldnt it be changed to simply Template:Infobox character? Salavat (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I think that template would be appropriate. Artichoker[talk] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. writing isn't great, but most of the unsourced paragraphs need simple in universe sources, and the important sections are sourced well enough to just stay as GA. Don't think it would get promoted as is though.Yobmod (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]