Talk:Chandelure

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chandelure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Soon. I have very limited knowledge of Pokémon, so when I review this article, bear with me. λ NegativeMP1 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. Thanks for taking this nomination! PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Still intend on reviewing this, gonna need a little bit longer though. λ NegativeMP1 06:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Review

None of the quickfail criteria were met, so skipping straight to the actual review.

Prose

• "They were created by Ken Sugimori and were introduced in the video games Pokémon Black and White." → "Designed by Ken Sugimori, they were introduced in the video games Pokémon Black and White."
  • Implemented. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Link first prose instance of Ken Sugimori
  • Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Change infobox caption to "Promotional artwork"
  • Well, I am following other Pokémon species pages for Wikipedia, and they go by "[Pokémon] artwork by Ken Sugimori." Is that still problematic? PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Any more development information on the species?
  • Yeah that's it, the Pokémon franchise isn't exactly known for covering conceptions of most Pokémon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• There are two different methods of stating "Fire and Ghost type" in the article, with one having a "-" after fire. Use one or the other for consistency.
  • I think fixed, but I might be misunderstanding. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• You mention lore in the lead and reception sections, yet don't give a brief overview of the lore of the species. If its restricted to a brief overview, it should be covered by WP:PLOTCITE and not require a citation.
  • Changed to "based on in-game entries of it." PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Chandelure also made an appearance in several Pokémon anime episodes" italicize the name of the anime.
  • Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• The paragraph of some outlets criticizing the species needs to be extended. You mention in the lead the species was met with mixed reception, yet don't elaborate on how exactly it was mixed.
  • Expanded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Media

Only one image is used in the whole article, and it's the species itself. Obviously a necessary image with justified fair use.

Sources

I'll do a spotcheck soon. Spot checked 11, 21, 36, and 39. They all seem to verify the content they are cited to, so pass on this end.

Final comments

Putting this on hold to give you time to address the comments posted above. λ NegativeMP1 01:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to finishing the implementations of the review's suggestions in two days, thanks for reviewing! PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

NegativeMP1 And I addressed your suggestions so far, let me know if there's any lingering issues. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the chandelier Pokémon Chandelure is a playable character in the fighting game Pokkén Tournament? Source: "Pokkén Tournament takes Pokémon somewhere new: the fringe of fan fiction" https://venturebeat.com/games/pokken-tournament-takes-pokemon-somewhere-new-the-fringes-of-fan-fiction/
  • ALT1: ... that a writer for TheGamer grew to love the chandelier Pokémon Chandelure despite inherently disliking the designs of "object-based" Pokémon species? Source: "I Finally Get Why Chandelure Is Such A Great Pokemon" https://www.thegamer.com/chandelure-pokemon-unite-moves-ghost/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Paleoallium

Improved to Good Article status by PrimalMustelid (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC).

• @PrimalMustelid: Recent GA. Length is satisfactory and no indication of copyvio, QPQ is done (just 1 required). Good to go, but before that I would propose a reword the original hook:

• ALT2: ... that the Pokémon Chandelure, based off a chandelier, is playable in the fighting game Pokkén Tournament?

• ALT3: ... that the fighting game Pokkén Tournament has a playable chandelier Pokémon?

Juxlos (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

RFD: Not notable enough on its own for a Wikipedia article

The only thing that makes this Pokémon notable is the fact that it's hated, something that takes up a few paragraphs. The amount of modern Pokémon fans that hate or even care about this design is not enough to justify this article not being separated from another article. I understand that my argument here is based purely in opinion, but please, go to, i.e. a Pokémon Go meetup, or any other meetup of any casual Pokémon fans, and ask the people if they have an opinion on Chandelure. You'll find it's mostly the diehards or the very vocal who will tell you they hate this Pokémon, and there are not enough of those people to justify this.

Yes, the references are filled with news articles putting this on the "most hated Pokémon" list but I really don't think that actually speaks to the notability of this Pokémon. You'll find an astonishing number of people do not actually care about this.

This should either be merged with List of Pokémon, or a new article should be made about the criticism of Pokémon. IoI xD (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also the fact that if you were to make articles on Pokemon because "they're hated by some people", a good 100-200 articles would need to be made.

If anything, this should be turned into an article about the criticism of Pokemon IoI xD (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Well if you feel an AfD is necessary, do one. That's the more appropriate approach and platform. Keep in mind too though the reasoning you gave above isn't particularly great: you're basically trying to argue "it's not in the public consciousness", which isn't the point of wikipedia or notability. There are many characters that a lot of people couldn't pull out of a lineup, but have plenty of discussion and reaction from citeable sources. So if you're going in with that approach you're going to be very disappointed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you actually read this article, but it's not just negative receptions, it also demonstrates that the Pokémon species additionally received positive receptions for its design and/or gameplay features. Hence, the lede literally states that it received a mixed reception. Notability can be demonstrated by significant commentary of a given entity, and general obscurity to the general public does not actually block it from notability on Wikipedia. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)