Talk:Super Effective (webcomic)/Featured article candidate: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Latest comment: 20 November 2009 by Blake in topic Super Effective (webcomic)
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
*Not good enough to be a FA, not FA-worthy material. If it was up to me, I would even deem it unnotable. --[[User:Maxim|Maxim]] 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | *Not good enough to be a FA, not FA-worthy material. If it was up to me, I would even deem it unnotable. --[[User:Maxim|Maxim]] 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
*A good article, but we shouldn't make every article like this a FA. We should have most articles like this! That, and ht14's reason... ''Alpha'' [[User:CuboneKing|<font color="Red">Cu</font>]][[User talk:CuboneKing|<font color="Bronze">bo</font>]][[Special:Contributions/CuboneKing|<font color="Green">ne</font>]][[Cubone (Pokémon)|<font color="Black">King</font>]] 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | *A good article, but we shouldn't make every article like this a FA. We should have most articles like this! That, and ht14's reason... ''Alpha'' [[User:CuboneKing|<font color="Red">Cu</font>]][[User talk:CuboneKing|<font color="Bronze">bo</font>]][[Special:Contributions/CuboneKing|<font color="Green">ne</font>]][[Cubone (Pokémon)|<font color="Black">King</font>]] 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
*Like others have said, it is good, but it is nowhere near featured. Maybe once the comic progresses some more and there is more to write about? <sub style="color:#00008B;">'''[[User:Blake|Blake]]'''</sub> <sup>[[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]]</sup> 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
====Other comments==== | ====Other comments==== | ||
Revision as of 14:47, 20 November 2009
Support (8)
- This article has come a long way since its simple, stubby start. I wouldn't say it is complete—is anything here ever complete?—but it certainly contains a wealth of information. I'm at a loss to say what more could be added, and it is a shining example for what can be done to other pages flying under the Project Fandom banner. Support as nom. —darklordtrom 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- PR approves. It's something that we don't see very often...Something outside of the regular Pokémon series. It's usually in-game articles, obviously. It's nice to see that something else has the potential to become featured and break down the walls, so to speak, against the fandom like this comic and possibly get the users to be inspired to not just work on our amazing articles and work on stubs they find interesting. --Psyライダー☮ 22:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The page is pretty good, and it's the best of its type. I dare you to find a better webcomic page! (Which reminds me, Pokemon-X still needs one.) The Dark Fiddler - You enter a poorly lit room... 22:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Trom. The article has improved since it's creation.--♫Green♫ギャラドス♫Talk♫ 22:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. This started out as a stub and now it has expanded alot. Also, it is one of the good webcomic articles. It has gone a long way from it's former self. --☆Coolピカチュウ! 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- For an article based off a webcomic to evolve from a stub into a thriving article like this is just fantastic. This article really would show the effort of many different editors in creating one great article. Which is what Bulbapedia is all about. By all means it should win!--TheLastCharmander 21:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I really think this should be featured. It's really informative and it is interesting. Do you agree?--Maii 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Maii
- It is very informative and describes the fandom jokes very well. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Object (7)
- I don't think this is worthy of an effective FAC, because there are many younger kids, and if they notice this as an FAC, who knows what could happen... ht14 01:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is this about the quality of the article or the subject? Because this should be about the quality and not the subject. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 17:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's both. Grammar is weak. ht14 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is this about the quality of the article or the subject? Because this should be about the quality and not the subject. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 17:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- *facepalm* Not another forced FA of a certain page group >.> The page is decent but by no means it is good enough to earn the FA status. UltimateSephiroth (about me · chat · edits) 12:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- While this is a good article, I don't think it's FAC-worthy. It just doesn't stand out compared to other website articles imho. ZestyCactus 05:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like the article at all. There isn't enough detail on it, and after all, it's an article on something totally unimportant to the franchise. A definite no. Dusknoir477 22:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- The article is decent (The fact that it's about something a Canadian made is a bonus :P), but I don't find it good enough for FA status.-- Iron ICE (User:Cold)(page, talk) 20:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not good enough to be a FA, not FA-worthy material. If it was up to me, I would even deem it unnotable. --Maxim 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- A good article, but we shouldn't make every article like this a FA. We should have most articles like this! That, and ht14's reason... Alpha CuboneKing 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Like others have said, it is good, but it is nowhere near featured. Maybe once the comic progresses some more and there is more to write about? Blake Talk·Edits 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
