Bulbapedia:Featured article candidates

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 08:42, 4 April 2005 by Arty2 (talk | contribs) (Candidates)
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.



  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.


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.


April Fool's Day 2005

Support (1)

  • A unique report that is informative and well illustrated. - 振霖T 17:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the previous comment. In addition, it may be wise to have another candidate ready, as this article will only be relevant for a few weeks at the most. - Argy 01:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Object (3)

  • The article seems to have very limited relevance now that the day had passed, and is in all honesty little more than a list of events, with little depth. Hardly the kind of material we'd want for our first feature. - User:Archaic
  • Agreed. The first impression that people get from coming to Bulbapedia could very well be the featured article, being the cream of the crop, if this is a page of jokes... Then well I don't think it's a good advertisement if anything else. And while it is informative, it has little content at all, being nothing more of a basic list and a couple of screenshots. Little effort has been put into the article. - Ferret
  • Weird article, over two years out of date now. And we've got a lot of better articles now. --Pie ~ 18:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

  • A reminder: the featured article of the day is different from a featured article - an article will always have featured article status, and a featured article of the day is necessarily a featured article; however, a featured article does not necessarily have to ever be, or have been a featured article of the day. - 振霖T 16:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Support (9)

  • A very informative game related article in my opinion, well illustrated and well documented. - Arty2 09:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with Arty. It's a very well-written, informative article that probably should be among the top. However, I think the layout may need a little bit of fixing before we present it as a FA. evkl 10:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur as well. An article that has a direct relation to Pokémon would seem to be the better choice for the first feature. - Archaic 23:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with evkl. - Jshadias 05:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • With a bit of a layout cleanup and a small bit of information on the mechanics of Poké Balls (or from what you can piece together) I think it would be a perfect candidate. - Ferret
  • I agree. The only thing that annoys me is that we're lacking individual illustrations for all the Balls, but aside from that - it's a good choice. - Zeta
  • Ditto. Nothing really left for me to say. surskitty 22:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably the best article on the site Coppro 01:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Beyond a doubt one of the best articles now, even better than it was when it was first nominated as a FAC. There has been some discussion of breaking it down into individual ball articles, the thought of which makes me sad - it's a beautiful article, and if we do move to individual ball articles, I think this one should be moved to "Ball" and, besides links to the individual articles, remain untouched. --Pie ~ 18:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Its all right! --Kuki 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Kuki

Object (1)

  • Oppose. Too short, strange layout. Jellochuu¾ 23:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other comments