Talk:Photography/Featured article candidate: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
PsychicRider (talk | contribs) m (\o\ for TL;DR) |
Purimpopoie (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* Yep yep. Being featured. The page is sufficient enough to be featured. Although the DPPt should really include pictures. but the page is juz too great. [[User:Ruixiang95|<span style="color:#A0522D">Ruixiang</span>]][[User talk:Ruixiang95|<span style="color:#FF8C00">''95''</span>]] 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) | * Yep yep. Being featured. The page is sufficient enough to be featured. Although the DPPt should really include pictures. but the page is juz too great. [[User:Ruixiang95|<span style="color:#A0522D">Ruixiang</span>]][[User talk:Ruixiang95|<span style="color:#FF8C00">''95''</span>]] 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
====Object ( | ====Object (5)==== | ||
<!--Please remember to update the count along with your vote.--> | <!--Please remember to update the count along with your vote.--> | ||
*I think the ''non-HGSS'' sections are still lacking, the table used looks dated compared to 'Pedia's house-style. All in all I think the other game sections need fleshing out more. It's a nice article, but I think we have better ones. ''--'''<sup>[[user:Emp|Emp]]</sup>''' 21:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)'' | *I think the ''non-HGSS'' sections are still lacking, the table used looks dated compared to 'Pedia's house-style. All in all I think the other game sections need fleshing out more. It's a nice article, but I think we have better ones. ''--'''<sup>[[user:Emp|Emp]]</sup>''' 21:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)'' | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*This article is not well enough written and does not include enough pictures. I would contribute, but don't have anything on Photography. I will vote for it if it is improved. [[User:Mudkipluvr4ever|Mudkipluvr4ever]] 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC) | *This article is not well enough written and does not include enough pictures. I would contribute, but don't have anything on Photography. I will vote for it if it is improved. [[User:Mudkipluvr4ever|Mudkipluvr4ever]] 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
*I'm going to have to object to this one...While it has come along from being a stub, I feel that there could be more to add. To be honest, I don't think every article that goes from stub to some semi-lengthy article should be attempted to be featured...It's like it's making a mockery of all the FACs honestly...All those other FACs have more detail and go incredibly in depth. I see there's work in here, but I feel it just scratches the surface of what Photography in the games is...Maybe I'm wrong and that what this is truly is all there is, but I think there could be many other articles which have been growing steadily and not possibly not so rushed and have been consistently edited to go more in depth, something I really don't think this deserves...So I'm going to have to object to this being nominated...--[[User:PsychicRider|<span style="color:#78C850;">'''Psy'''</span>]][[User talk:PsychicRider|<sub style="color:#F85888;">'''ライダー'''</sub>]]''[[Special:Contributions/PsychicRider|<span style="color:#C4E673;">'''☮'''</span>]]'' 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | *I'm going to have to object to this one...While it has come along from being a stub, I feel that there could be more to add. To be honest, I don't think every article that goes from stub to some semi-lengthy article should be attempted to be featured...It's like it's making a mockery of all the FACs honestly...All those other FACs have more detail and go incredibly in depth. I see there's work in here, but I feel it just scratches the surface of what Photography in the games is...Maybe I'm wrong and that what this is truly is all there is, but I think there could be many other articles which have been growing steadily and not possibly not so rushed and have been consistently edited to go more in depth, something I really don't think this deserves...So I'm going to have to object to this being nominated...--[[User:PsychicRider|<span style="color:#78C850;">'''Psy'''</span>]][[User talk:PsychicRider|<sub style="color:#F85888;">'''ライダー'''</sub>]]''[[Special:Contributions/PsychicRider|<span style="color:#C4E673;">'''☮'''</span>]]'' 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
* Coming a long way doesn't mean it doesn't have much further to go. As others have said, there are other pictures that could be put up, and we may get more information when HGSS is released.--[[User:Purimpopoie|Purimpopoie]] 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Other comments==== | ====Other comments==== | ||
Revision as of 02:25, 5 February 2010
Photography
Support (7)
- I think that this page has gone a long way since the beginning. It has plenty of pictures, and lots of info. --Pokemon1234567890 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. What was probably initially thought as exclusive for HGSS became a sprout for many new things. What was initially a stub seems high-quality enough to be a featured article. ht14 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Supported! This article has come a long way from its beginnings. It covers many different aspects of the franchise (games, manga, etc) and is just really interesting to read. --ZestyCactus 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support, for reasons stated above. .GreenPhoenix. 01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Supported. It shows that stubs have potential to become good, quality articles. Not only that, but it includes a wide range of mediums used by the franchise. SnorlaxMonster
- All of the above. Support. CuboneKing
- Yep yep. Being featured. The page is sufficient enough to be featured. Although the DPPt should really include pictures. but the page is juz too great. Ruixiang95 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Object (5)
- I think the non-HGSS sections are still lacking, the table used looks dated compared to 'Pedia's house-style. All in all I think the other game sections need fleshing out more. It's a nice article, but I think we have better ones. --Emp 21:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is a very interesting subject for that matter.--Lambie 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)- Scratch this. It's irrelevant. We're voting for FAC, not which article is interesting... ht14 13:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Who cares if it is interesting or not! It's how well it is written. -Pokemon1234567890 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Scratch this. It's irrelevant. We're voting for FAC, not which article is interesting... ht14 13:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Diamond/Pearl section seems very empty. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is there to mention? ht14 13:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe you should expand it to meet what you want. You would help the article a lot for doing that! -Pokemon1234567890] 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- If it'll show on TV or not for one. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then we have an article on that. We have television, and record mixing, and what not... ht14 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- If there's not enough content to improve the article, why should it be noted as one of "the best articles on Bulbapedia". I think it's a good article, I just don't think it meets Featured Article criteria. I'm still kind of undecided though, maybe it just needs a little work --Emp, out 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then we have an article on that. We have television, and record mixing, and what not... ht14 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is there to mention? ht14 13:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- This article is not well enough written and does not include enough pictures. I would contribute, but don't have anything on Photography. I will vote for it if it is improved. Mudkipluvr4ever 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to object to this one...While it has come along from being a stub, I feel that there could be more to add. To be honest, I don't think every article that goes from stub to some semi-lengthy article should be attempted to be featured...It's like it's making a mockery of all the FACs honestly...All those other FACs have more detail and go incredibly in depth. I see there's work in here, but I feel it just scratches the surface of what Photography in the games is...Maybe I'm wrong and that what this is truly is all there is, but I think there could be many other articles which have been growing steadily and not possibly not so rushed and have been consistently edited to go more in depth, something I really don't think this deserves...So I'm going to have to object to this being nominated...--Psyライダー☮ 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Coming a long way doesn't mean it doesn't have much further to go. As others have said, there are other pictures that could be put up, and we may get more information when HGSS is released.--Purimpopoie 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
