Talk:LuxChomp (TCG)/Featured article candidate

LuxChomp (TCG)

Support (4)

• Nominating as an FAC candidate. Perhaps nominating your own article is frowned upon, but LuxChomp is a huge deal in the TCG right now, and has been arguably the most influential deck in the format for quite awhile. It's well-written, it looks good, and it will bring a lot more visibility to the archetype articles, which some people might not even be aware of. Let me know what the rest of you think. Thanks. --P o L i 02:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Very well written, nice pictures, and I think that it's a nice change to have a card as a featured article. The article is an overall great article to represent Bulbapedia! Pokemaster97 03:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have a card as a featured article... ^Maverick_Nate 03:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See? It's been so long that many people don't remember.... Pokemaster97 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever gone to the category listing them all? It isn't a matter of time: once they are featured, they are classified that way for life. ^Maverick_Nate 21:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Poli and Pokemaster. It is written really well and has enough pictures✱----無限の知性 ◎ ＤＥＮＮＯＵ◆ＺＥＮＳＨＩ 14:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Great article. The TCG has been neglected to some extent and this is what we need more of. Arceus97 19:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Object (6)

• Oppose. I feel like a FA should display more community contribution than this one does. 梅子^❀_✿ 05:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• It does not seem to be written any better than some of the others. Not unique enough in my opinion to be considered a FAC. Good article, but among a sea of good articles over the same area, it doesn't stand out from others. ^Maverick_Nate 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• It's a good article, but really doesn't rise above the rest in my opinion. CuboneKing 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing really stands out... it's organized, but nothing really points to it being worth an FAC. ^ht14 16:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• There's nothing special about it that makes it a feature article. A feature article is not just about meeting the criteria, but also going above and beyond. Eliza 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• It's detailed and accurate, but it isn't better than any other "good" article. UNREAL 03:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Other comments

• I'd like to point out that I've done a lot of work with the archetypes lately and, as TCG strategy has long been neglected on Bulbapedia, it would be a huge boost for us in the eyes of the TCG-oriented fandom to give it a little more attention. Of course, I do that to the best of my ability, but now that we're getting more articles and they're higher quality, Bulbapedia as a whole ought to be making them a little more prominent. Plenty of TCG fans who visit Bulbapedia for other information may start making it their stop to research archetypes as well, if they see one featured on the front page. --P o L i 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I dunno much 'bout the TGC, but it looks as good as the Charizard Base Set 4. It does lack a trivia section though... ----Desukaan563's userpage has a Value Formula to measure Pokémon worth (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, that's a possible addition. There's probably a decent amount of trivia I could dig up about LuxChomp. There's always the notability question, though. --P o L i 19:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)