GA Review[edit]

Passed. λ NegativeMP1 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chandelure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soon. I have very limited knowledge of Pokémon, so when I review this article, bear with me. λ NegativeMP1 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fine. Thanks for taking this nomination! PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still intend on reviewing this, gonna need a little bit longer though. λ NegativeMP1 06:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

None of the quickfail criteria were met, so skipping straight to the actual review.

Prose[edit]

Media[edit]

Only one image is used in the whole article, and it's the species itself. Obviously a necessary image with justified fair use.

Sources[edit]

I'll do a spotcheck soon. Spot checked 11, 21, 36, and 39. They all seem to verify the content they are cited to, so pass on this end.

Final comments[edit]

Putting this on hold to give you time to address the comments posted above. λ NegativeMP1 01:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll get to finishing the implementations of the review's suggestions in two days, thanks for reviewing! PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NegativeMP1 And I addressed your suggestions so far, let me know if there's any lingering issues. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by PrimalMustelid (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Juxlos (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


RFD: Not notable enough on its own for a Wikipedia article[edit]

The only thing that makes this Pokémon notable is the fact that it's hated, something that takes up a few paragraphs. The amount of modern Pokémon fans that hate or even care about this design is not enough to justify this article not being separated from another article. I understand that my argument here is based purely in opinion, but please, go to, i.e. a Pokémon Go meetup, or any other meetup of any casual Pokémon fans, and ask the people if they have an opinion on Chandelure. You'll find it's mostly the diehards or the very vocal who will tell you they hate this Pokémon, and there are not enough of those people to justify this.

Yes, the references are filled with news articles putting this on the "most hated Pokémon" list but I really don't think that actually speaks to the notability of this Pokémon. You'll find an astonishing number of people do not actually care about this.

This should either be merged with List of Pokémon, or a new article should be made about the criticism of Pokémon. IoI xD (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that if you were to make articles on Pokemon because "they're hated by some people", a good 100-200 articles would need to be made.
If anything, this should be turned into an article about the criticism of Pokemon IoI xD (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you feel an AfD is necessary, do one. That's the more appropriate approach and platform. Keep in mind too though the reasoning you gave above isn't particularly great: you're basically trying to argue "it's not in the public consciousness", which isn't the point of wikipedia or notability. There are many characters that a lot of people couldn't pull out of a lineup, but have plenty of discussion and reaction from citeable sources. So if you're going in with that approach you're going to be very disappointed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you actually read this article, but it's not just negative receptions, it also demonstrates that the Pokémon species additionally received positive receptions for its design and/or gameplay features. Hence, the lede literally states that it received a mixed reception. Notability can be demonstrated by significant commentary of a given entity, and general obscurity to the general public does not actually block it from notability on Wikipedia. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories