Talk:Eeveelution/Featured article candidate

Eeveelution

Support (5)

• Probably the best Project Fandom's got. Well written, organized, and accurate. Agree. CuboneKing
• Agree. Best fandom article, great comparison templates, support.--♫Green♫ギャラドス♫Talk♫ 00:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. It is the best of project fandom--1ted59 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Very organized in a format everyone can understand. It is also very descriptive. It has info from the games, anime, TCG, and manga. ^ht14 23:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. It is the best of Project Fandom. It is very well organized with tons of information. No major mistakes. It doesn't break any rules. It is well known. Kudos! -- Landfish⁷ 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Object (5)

• Object. The initial paragraph is no more than a definition of the term "Eeveelution", while the rest of the article is basically a long-list of summaries of the different Eeveelutions, and a link to the main article. Images make up the bulk of this page. The article needs severe expansion, as well as in-depth discussion of what exactly this term and these Pokemon mean to the fandom that think they're worthy for their own general article. The trivia section is much too long with information that is hardly trivial at all, and would probably be better-suited for integration into the main article. Redstar 20:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Object. I think it's... too list-like. The large amount of blank space in the article looks really bad (Maybe put the comparison boxes side-by-side instead of on the right?) and... it's just kinda blank. The similarities in looks is notable for the ones introduced in the same gen, but other than that, a lot of the info is already on their respective articles. Definetely needs more content to it. ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the above 2 people objecting. Also, the anime section seems a bit too small, especially the section about Zoey's Leafeon, which doesn't have any text at all. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Object! Ummm... yeah... it is not really that quality of a FA. It's a list. And as much as we love lists on Bulbapedia, we don't really need them as FA's. There are plenty of better articles for that position.--Smartkidhen (So I saw this sign that said Red Velvet • Team Galactic has plans) 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Object. I have to agree with the comments of the guys above me. It's too list-y for something you'd want on your front page. --AdrienC 16:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

Time's up..--GreenGyarados^{Happy Holidays!} 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)