Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Bulbapedia:Featured article candidates

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 15:22, 20 May 2007 by Celticfan383 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Featured articles
What is a featured article?
Featured article candidates
Featured articles
The path to featured status
GlassOrnamentSprite.png   Start an article
GlassOrnamentSprite.png   Check criteria
GlassOrnamentSprite.png   Get nominated
GlassOrnamentSprite.png   Featured article

A featured article should exemplify the goals of Bulbapedia - an accurate, comprehensive and Pokémon-focused encyclopedia. Featured articles should be picked from the very best work on Bulbapedia, although this is not the same as picking from the most detailed or the most accurate.

These are featured article candidates.

Procedures

Nominating

  1. Check it against the featured article criteria
  2. ...
  3. Add a {{FAC}} invocation to the candidates section, for instance, {{FAC||Bulbapedia}}, or if the article in question is not in the main namespace, {{FAC|Bulbapedia|About}}.
  4. Create the associated talk page by entering {{subst:FAC talk}} and saving the page.
  5. Add {{FAC notice}} to the top of the candidate article.

Voting

To vote, simply edit the appropriate sections. Add your signature (~~~~), preferably with a comment, to the list of supporters / objectors. Remember to update the count in the heading.

Candidates

Brock

Brock | Discussion | Nominated on {{{3}}}

Support (19)

  • I'm really happy to see someone put this up as a FAC, considering how much work I've put into the article. There's still a little more work to be done - the manga section makes me sad because it still has a picture ganked from Serebii - but otherwise I do think this is one of our best articles. --Pie ~ 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I definitely think it's one the most in-depth articles in Bulbapedia... I blame you totally for it, Pie. TTEchidna 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Very nice, high quality article. Perfect grammar, nice detail. Good job! -Politoed666 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice, Nice, really really nice. Good grammar. Long article. Everything. Good Pictures too. --User:GlalieGuy
  • IMO, the most information filled page on Bulbapedia! Zander 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is one of the best of Bulbapedia articles and it should be a featured one
  • This is very detailed and interesting to read, I would definatly like this to become featured - AdamDuffield - 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Very detailed, this is a definite FA--KukiTalk 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Great article but way to large, split maybe? Kilik 12:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Great page nothing wrong.--CoolPikachu! 00:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No Complaints.--PikaNinja7
  • Now that all of Brock's cards in the TCG have pages, I think he deserves it. MoldyOrange 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This a very good article to read over and over I can say I have read it a lot of times Pokemonboy 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Object (0)

Other comments

  • Why is it that when I push the FACs, people think I'm only trying to get this article featured? --Pie ~ 03:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • ... actually, on second thought, don't answer that. --Pie ~ 03:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure this is really good page, but it looks sooo long. I think it needs to be broken up more or something. I just can't bring myself to wade through all that text. --Greengiant 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would vote "support," but I already voted for Pokémon world in relation to the real world. --Shiny NoctowlTalk | Fun 19:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh, it's not like voting for one out of the ones up here to be accepted as a featured article. It is a judgment of the individual article for the status. All of these could be accepted as Featured Articles without causing conflict. Note how I've voted that I support several. ^^o --Pie ~ 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon

Support (9)

  • One of our most popular, detailed, and well-organized articles. --Pie ~ 18:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • At 59,675 views out of a total of 27,625,363, or 0.21%, I wouldn't say "most popular", but certainly, a more interesting topic than most of the possible topics in Pokémon, which are mundane and nothing more that lists of facts. - 振霖T 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is a great article, as a new user i have browsed the articles most appealing to me and this is one heck of a page! It's well layed out and has very good articles. ¡иąтнąи! | Talk | Email| 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This page should be featured because it features well researched content. It's still kind of a work in progress, but I think it's a marker of what we should be moving toward. --Greengiant 06:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the legendary Pokemon and it's article. So here.--Golbat 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the sayings and all of them.--Machamp ion 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the information and other sayings about the Pokémon.--Jemar 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • An exellent page, although I think somebody should mention that Legendary Pokémon are often protrayed as unique species. This betrays logic exept with the Legendary Beasts and Mewtwo, considering their origins. There are probably other unique Pokémon in Generation III and Generation IV, but I don't follow those Generations. - unsigned comment from Akai Shizuku (talkcontribs)
  • Fairly good, I belive that it should be a bit smaller, but otherwise very good. --Shiny Giratina

Oppose

Other comments

Kanto

Kanto | Discussion | Nominated on {{{3}}}

Support (1)

  • i support having this nominated because it is a well written article with pictures of each of the maps from Generations I-III. ¡иąтнąи! | Talk | Email| 15:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose (3)

  • I think it's much too short. --Maxim 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There's nothing really significant about this, is there? Its content is mostly a bunch of lists. --Pie ~ 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No substantial content. - 振霖T 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

Accepted

Rejected