Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Torchic/archive1

Torchic

Here goes nothing, I'm nominating this because after months of full rewriting and being promoted to GA status, I, among others, believe that this article is ready to face the FA gauntlet that nominating an article of this nature is. While trying not to only judge this article within the Pokémon hub, this article is only second to Bulbasaur, which acheived FA.. eventually. In short I believe this article is of a high quality and please don't let your prejudices against "Pokécruft" fail this article, it at least deserves a chance.

I've attempted to respond to most of the objections from the previous FAC (although not all since it isn't finished) here. I believe this article has greatly improved since then, and I thank all who helped improved Torchic. As I'm sure most of you know, Pikachu is also/was recently up for FAC also, and this isn't attack of the carbon copy FACs, since the Pokémon Collaborative Project hasn't nominated either of these articles, the first being nominated by an outside party, this being nominated by it's main contributor. Thank you for reading this and all comments are welcomed, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Previous FAC here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. As far as I can tell, all my previous objections stand. For convenience, I will copy them back in here: All objections addressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Plurality / meaning of "Torchic". The lead starts out defining Torchic as a species, then quickly switches to sentences treating Torchic as a character: "Torchic is most famous for being one of the three Pokémon players can choose from at the beginning of their adventure..." Either the article should consistently treat "torchic" as the name of the species ("Torchic are most famous for being one of the three types of Pokemon...") or this dichotomy should be clarified.
  • Lapses into an in-Pokemon world-viewpoint. The article needs to be more consistent in describing Torchic in terms of our real world, not the fictional world it inhabits. To pick out one section, the "Characteristics" section is written as if describing the characteristics of a real creature.
  • Original research. As far as I can tell, "A possible reason for Torchic not being a dual Fire/Flying-type is that it evolves into Combusken, a dual Fire/Fighting-type.[10] Further evidence for this is that Flying-types have a natural advantage over Fighting-types, making it super-effective against its own evolutionary chain." is all original research.
  • Lack of secondary sources. The games, their instruction manuals, the pokedex entries, and the strategy guides are all primary sources for this material, produced (or in the case of strategy guides, closely overseen) by the same companies that created this character. The reference used for "synopses of Pokemon Anime appears to be just a fan site, so if I'm being ungenerous, I'd call it an unreliable source, or if I'm being generous, I'd call it a proxy for the cartoon itself, another primary source. Secondary sources would provide critical analysis or evidence of real-world impact. I don't think enough secondary sources providing critical analysis of the topic are present here to make for an FA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. First of all, could you explain the first note, I'm not exactly sure what "dichotomy" means. As I explained last time, both individual Torchic and all Torchic are called Torchic, kinda like calling your dog, dog.

The Characteristics section is meant to be from "an in-Pokémon world viewpoint", since it is referring to the Pokédex, an ingame reference tool for all Pokémon. Since you are talking about a fictitious creature, how can you reference and in-game encylopedia while using an out-game view point. I also had a ton of chicken notes, but somebody complained, so I tried and the people revolted.

I'll remove that original research now probably.

Could you give an example of a "secondary source", since I'm not sure of what you mean. I don't see how this can't be an FA without secondary sources while others of the same subject can. Thank you, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A magazine or news item would be a secondary source, usually. RN 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) Dichotomy is just a division in two; I'm referring simply to the two different uses of the word "torchic". If I were reading the article sheep, I'd be prety surprised to see the word "sheep" being used as the name of a single specific sheep: instead it would be written as "a sheep named 'sheep'" or something. That same problem is confusing in this article. The lead sentence defines "torchic" as a species. Fix it to mention that it's also the name of a character, or however it works, and you'll have addressed this objection. (2) "How can you reference and in-game encylopedia while using an out-game view point?" It's a matter of writing. "Torchics are portrayed as..." "The Pokedex describes torchics as..." Qualifiers. (4) As RN says, secondary sources would be books, magazines, newspapers, etc. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Someone reccommended to before to refer to May's Torchic (the only one that is a significant character) "May's Torchic", to clear things up. Thanks again, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've noted that Torchic is both the species and the name of indi. Torchic, I've removed that original sentence and I've had a scout about for secondary sources. I remember doing this last time, and I didn't find anything that went into any great detail about the one character, more on the games. I'll try and fix the characteristics section now. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still bad in that area, especially since you put the explanation at the end of the lead. Look at the very first two sentences of the article. "Torchic [...] is one of the 395 fictional species of Pokémon creatures[...]. Torchic is most famous for being one of the three Pokémon players can choose from..." This definition of "Torchic" as a species then the immediate jump to using the word as a character name doesn't work; needs rewriting. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I change the lead to -" Torchic (efefhwefh) is on the 395 self entitled fictional species...", or something else? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not; nobody would understand that. I don't know what the best solution is, since I'm not into Pokemon, but my personal preference would be to always use the word as the species name, so the second sentence becomes something like "Torchic are famous for being one of three kinds of Pokemon which players can choose from..." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Torchic are famous for being one of the three species of Pokémon players can...", is that better? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but now look at the very next sentence: "Its main purpose in the games..." The singular pronoun doesn't work if you are talking about a species. In honesty, I'm getting a little frustrated with your fix-one-tiny-thing way of working here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(Starts new line because too many colons) I am sorry if I'm at your wick's end, but I am feeling ill and I have as little clue as you do what to do, and I am no mood to trash the article and getting more confused, so I'll go one step at a time so I don't get a sore head. I've done some rewording and re-arranging. The intro now reads as-

Torchic are famous for being one of the three species of Pokémon players can choose from at the beginning of their adventure in the Pokémon Ruby & Pokémon Sapphire and Pokémon Emerald versions of the Pokémon series. The purpose of Torchic in the games, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both "wild" Pokémon, which are untamed creatures encountered while the player passes through various environments, and "tamed" Pokémon that are owned by Pokémon trainers.

After that, it goes into the clarification that Torchic can be called Torchic in the games, anime and manga, which should prevent any more confusion later on in the article. I'm sorry for snapping, but I'm feeling really ill, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

*Weak Oppose (via edit-conflict with User:HighwayCello) - This article is well-written and comprehensive, but I have two problems with it, one minor, and one significant. The minor one is the links to merchandise in the "External Links" section - Wikipedia is not for advertising. The major one is more systemic. While technically very detailed, the article presumes that the reader has a good understanding of the workings of the Pokemon universe, and little context is given for Poke-world situations which the non-initiated (such as myself) may not understand. This is true more or less throughout the article. To respond to Bunchofgrapes, the FA criteria do not specify that an article needs any secondary sources, just that it be referenced. This article is referenced, therefore it meets the criteria. Cheers! User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Use common sense there -- if someone wrote an article on a movie, and their only sources were the DVD of the movie itself and a transcript of the script, that article shouldn't be an FA. This is similar in my view. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but if the companion guide to the movie, the original books on which the movie was based, and fan and critical reaction to the movie was also taken into account, that would be good enough for me. User:The Disco King (not signed in)

You'd need sources for the "fan and critical reaction to the movie", right? The fan and critical reaction -- ie, the effect this thing has had on the world -- is exactly what I see lacking; in many ways, that's my point regarding the lack of secondary sources. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict, I'm normally on the receiving end. ; ) In regards to the first problem, the uncited merchandise was move from the references section to External Links primarily because it wasn't referenced in the article. I, by no means am trying to advertise this, but I didn't see the need or the point of drowning on about random Torchic products when they could just be noted. In regards to the major problem, I can appreciate this since it is the main problem in the majority of Pokémon articles, (notice how we're always explaining ;) could you point out some areas that you can't understand (I'll go through it myself, but it's harder for me to notice). Thank you again, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Take this paragraph as an example:

However, Torchic is the only Fire-type Pokémon available between Littleroot Town, the first area of the game, where one can be obtained from Professor Birch,[5] and Fiery Path, a mountainous region around a violent, active volcano several hours into the game. Grass-type Pokémon (such as Oddish, Sunkern and Shroomish) are very popular early in the game in all incarnations of the series and Torchic has a definitive type advantage against them.[6] Torchic evolves into its Stage-1 form, Combusken, at level 16, and evolves into its Stage-2 form, Blaziken, at Level 36.[7]

I've got no idea what half of that means. To the average reader who clicks on this article if it's on the Main Page, they're going to tune out if the prose isn't accessible to people who know nothing about Pokemon. First of all, what game are we talking about? Would it do to just say that they're rare in the early stages of the game? Evolves? Level 16? Professor Birch? Fire-type? I know that there are other articles for things like "fire-type", but since this is a fire-type Pokemon, do you think you could add a line or two describing what, exactly, a fire-type Pokemon is? Things like this. Similar problems occur all the way down. Pretend you've never heard of Pokemon, and read through the article, and look at all the places where people might be completely bewildered. Good luck! User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I've already started, noting the areas mentioned and that Oddish, Shroomish and Sunkern are Grass types (leafy Pokémon). And Pokémon Ruby is mentioned about 15 times! ; ) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the merchendise links. Raichu 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Overlinking: stuff like flightless bird shouldn't be linked unless you have a source that claims Torchics lost their wings through an evolutionary process because they had few enemies. Also don't need to link to things everytime they appear, like "Grass-type". Generally, you should only link once, but in some cases, it's best to link more often - more than once in a top-level section heading is almost always inappropriate, I think.
  • "Players can choose a Water-type, a Fire-type, or a Grass-type Pokémon indigenous to the region" -- not clear what region is being referred to. "Indigenous" is another example of overlinking.
  • Major copyediting needed. Especially the plot synopses (i.e. the following is an incomprehensibly dense run-on The main character of Pokémon Chamo-Chamo ☆ Pretty ♪ (a Magical Pokémon Journey spin-off) is an adamant female Torchic who has just moved to a new town with her trainer Haruka; this Torchic interacts with a number of other main characters—including Pikachu and Clefairy,[27] as well as both a Poochyena and Mightyena brothers,[28] whom Torchic has problems dealing with (because of her hatred for Poochyena and her love for his old brother, Mightyena).[28]). For example, adamant isn't right here (one can only be adamant about something; a person who is adamant about everything is stubborn). It's present tense. A number agreement problem (both a... brothers). Plus it's absurdly long and goes off on too many tangents. If this is a plot summary, why not "Pokémon Chamo-Chamo ☆ Pretty ♪ stars a Torchic alongside her nemesis, a Poochyena, his older brother, a Mightyena, and a Pikachu and Clefairy." - the rest of it's superfluous (well, the whole thing's kinda superfluous, but we can at least minimize it). Tuf-Kat 02:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes. First of all, Torchic is based on a chicken, which means it is a flightless bird, it also says it hops rather flies. So at the least it can't fly considerably well. It has never been documented by an official (or even and unofficial) that Torchic's wings grew claws because of evolution in the Darwinian sense, since Pokémon don't evolve that way (which I explained the article). Generally, when a Torchic gets enough experience from battling other Pokémon, it literally changes form, like metamorphasis. There is now guide to fictitious Torchic evolution, since it is immediate.

I will fix the over linking, thank you. On the note of indigenous, if you look thoroughly at the article, you can quite clearly notice that Torchic is one of the 3 starter Pokémon of the Hoenn region. This means the only place you get them is at the start of the Hoenn region. Frankly, I'm not sure if many Pokémon fans (who aren't normally either in high school or well read) would know what "indigenous" means. As I noted, the region is noting to the Hoenn region.

I think it is less in need of a copyedit in some parts (it had one) but you not understanding the text. Adamant is a nature of a Pokémon, like it is has an Adamant personality, which affects it's battling and defensive power, but manga and anime work it in to deepen the plot on occassion. So that needs more clarification. (And I'll fix the paragraph)

Thank you for your comments Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 09:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Righty, I've removed a bunch of double links (I'll go through it with a comb later), I've unlinked indigenous and clarified about the region, and I've cleaned up the manga bit (I just removed the Adamant section to remove confusion). Anything else? Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions. -Epolk 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Writing Captions WikiProject

Thank you, I grow them myself. </Chandler Bing> Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Nice article so far, but first I recommend going to the Bulbasaur page for further ideas. --

Slgrandson 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(bangs head off keyboard) No, because I killed last time for looking remotely like Bulbasaur. No offence, but what makes Bulbasaur better than this? It has all the problems you're mentioning but it remains on its lofty perch because it was nominated by a respected editor, and I get excreted on from a great height. Thank you for the suggestion, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe try writing about something else? Any information lacking reliable references should not be included in a FA. - Taxman ^Talk 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't lacking "reliable references", it is just that certain things don't exist, and frankly, I don't really care if what I write about is "FA-worthy". I will write about what I enjoy writing about. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Minor point: look at the characteristics section. If everything in that section has the same ref, you don't need to individually cite each sentence; just use one cite at the end of the paragraph. Anyway, I'm quite tempted to support this, but I need to think about it and look it over a bit more. Everyking 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Would that be better than it is now? I would use different sources but they all have the same info. It's the developers that write it so they all have the same entries. Thank you for the note. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 11:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Did it and I've left a note (in the invisible brakcets) to explain. I've also done some clarification and removed some over linking. Thank you, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK, the species vs. sigular thing was really annoying to me - so I tried to clean it up. I may have messed up everything though - sorry about that :). Anyway, I took and deep breath and read the article - I thought it was quite good actually!!!! RN 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much RN (I'll thank you on your talk page soon). Right the problems that have been fixed are -

• plurals
• merchandise links
• double linking (I'm pretty sure I've done ninety percent of them)
• original research
• fixed characteristics refs

What's left is -

• some explanation (It really would help if someone pointed some out)
• secondary refs (don't exist)

Am I missing anything? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 08:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here are some of the sections which were confusing to me:

• • The "In the Pokemon anime" section seems to just be a description of a few episodes featuring Torchic. Maybe discuss the role that Torchic plays in the series (I realize you already do this somewhat, but more detail and less description would be good). Ditto for the "In the Pokemon manga" section. More context - how big of a role do Torchic play in these media? What is their importance?

Just saw this, sorry. I've expand the anime section to note Torchic's purpose (which is the only one that is more than the general one at the top. I've expanded the top one to note that it cover games, anime and manga, since all Torchic have that role, as a Pokémon. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Kind of the opposite criticism as above: Do you need so much specific detail in the Video Game section? Can you give us an impression of the importance of Torchic in these games without having to tell us so much about the games? It's a bit of information overload.

I've made a few copyedits for grammar and clarity (hopefully), and if these few things are addressed, I'm inclined to change my vote to support. Cheers! The Disco King 14:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I explain about the games that Torchic makes cameo appearances in? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My main difficulty is with the section describing Torchic in the main games. It's still a little dense for my tastes, but I'm not sure what to remove, not being overly knowledgeable about the subject. Perhaps a little more information about the cameos would be nice, but since they're cameos, there can't be that much to say about Torchic's importance in these games. I would focus more on making the section about the main games as clear as possible. Good luck! The Disco King 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The entire article describes the character from the perspective of the games, stories, etc. Virtually nothing is given on evidence of impact or lack thereof outside the stories themselves. We need sales figures, marketing studies, market influence, etc, all of which should be the substantial portion of the article, not the current structure. Almost all of the sources are promotional materials or gaming sources which are essentially promotional also. There are few if any reliable sources outside that realm. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. If you want to write about fictional topics, you have to write encyclopedic information. So this isn't to discourage, but help you to focus future efforts so it won't be so frustrating. - Taxman ^Talk 13:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• No offence, but none of that exists. And frankly, if Bulbasaur can pass an FAC without it, I think it isn't fair to hold it against this article. That isn't an actionable objection, so there's nothing I can do about it. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  I beg to differ. At least some of that exists. If it didn't exist that represents a reason the article isn't comprehensive and thus shouldn't be a FA. But again, much of that information is out there, it's just not in the article. And Bulbasaur probably never should have been promoted, but it does have more out of universe perspective information if I recall. Additionally justifying based on one of the most contentious FACs ever is not exactly a ringing endorsement. - Taxman ^Talk 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  Bulbasaur has no more than Torchic. And if I used to justify because it is unfair that an article on one subject should pass with a flaw, and another article failed because of it. All there is is Ruby and Sapphire sales figures, which has nothing to do with the real world impact of Torchic. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  All I can say is I thought there were enough substantial objections to Bulbasaur that I didn't need to pile on. That one article passed with a flaw is not a sufficient reason to pass another with one. - Taxman ^Talk 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  But it isn't fair to treat articles on the same topic differently. That is what we call prejudice. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  "Fair" isn't really an important consideration. Meeting the criteria is. The way to rectify the situation is to improve Bulbasaur, not promote another article with flaws. Your efforts would be better spent rectifying the flaw with this article. Trim the in universe information, and add the encyclopedic, out of universe information. - Taxman ^Talk 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  It doesn't exist! Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't buy that, but if that's true then I doubly object, because if a topic doesn't have verifiable out of universe information we shouldn't have an article on it, much less a FA. - Taxman ^Talk 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yay, I was looking forward to an AfD warning! Wee. I wish you the best of luck. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• (starts new line) It doesn't exist because the only "Torchic-only" product you could gauge is merchandise specifically of Torchic. Any success of the game can't be primarily linked to Torchic, and it is impossible to measure ratings of stuffed toys. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I shall end with a quote from the FAC front page -

• • I'm going to agree with HighwayCello here. Any discussion about the impact of this particular Pokemon is going to encompass a discussion of the impact of Pokemon generally, with very few exceptions. From what I can tell, this article is comprehensive in that it covers all of the available information on Torchic, and if one was to insert a discussion of the impact of Pokemon here, one would have to insert a nearly-identical discussion on every Pokemon page. Perhaps a link to Impact of Pokemon or some similar page would be appropriate, but really, insisting on the inclusion of information which doesn't exist as a reason for objection isn't reasonable. The Disco King 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored."

It's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Both because I still don't believe there's nothing out there (toys have sales figures) and that if there isn't, WP:V says there shouldn't be an article on it, so delete. That's something that can be done in principle. I'm not going to waste my time on AfD, but it's a perfectly good reason it doesn't meet the FA criteria. - Taxman ^Talk 20:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I had the same feelings regarding Hurricane Irene. Raul654 disagrees with that position. See the discussion I had with him about it here. If you think it should be deleted, AfD it before or after it's featured, if it is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's different. That's saying the article in principle would pass AfD. I don't really care too much if it does. But Highway is arguing there is no out of universe information available from reliable sources about the importance and impact of the subject. If that's true then it should make for a pretty easy AfD if people voted based on policy. They don't, but lack of information that would be needed for a FA is still a valid reason it shouldn't be one. - Taxman ^Talk 21:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But that isn't an actionable objection. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the difference, Taxman. The upshot, here and at Hurricane Irene, is that "this shouldn't be an article" isn't a valid FAC objection. Wrong venue for the question. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because as I said, that's not my objection. My objection is the lack of any verifiable out of universe information. For purposes here I don't care if it should be an article or not. And the actionable objection bit has lost it's usefullness. I was part of creating that and we used it before there was a verifiability policy to forestall objections about a topic being too obscure. Now that we have the verifiability policy we can make it much simpler: only an article that has enough verifiable information to be comprehensive can be featured. We all know that without verifiable out of universe information this article isn't a useful one and shouldn't be featured. Let's let common sense decide, not rules lawyering. - Taxman ^Talk 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the lawyering; I'm just having some trouble seeing the distinction between this case and Hurricane Irene, which, while real, had very close to no verifiable real-world impact. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So since this article doesn't have a number that completely makes no difference to the quality of this article, it can't be an FA? Okay, I'll make one up! 4. They sold 4. Perfect! ¬_¬ I'm sorry, I'm just trying to join you on the obnoxious scale. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's different, it's a Hurricane that did damage. This is a chicken! A fake chicken. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well as the page summarizes - "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I don't see anything about sales figures for toys. Hasbro doesn't gauge its products. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm agreeing with HighwayCello here. I don't think that people should be rude to HighwayCello just becuase. If Bulbasaur passes an FAC then so should this, as it is way better then the Bulbasaur page. Raichu 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is a really good article. For starters, it's definately sourced (while secondary sources would be nice, they aren't reqired and if they don't exist, there's not much we can do about it). It's written well, in an encyclopedic manner. Seems understasndable to non-fans (though I don't qualify as one of those). Nice pictures and the article looks balanced overall. It's my pleasure to support. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Positive Comment This is article is very well referenced. It appears to use all avaliable resources possible in order to cite information. Additionally, there are already Featured articles about fictional things that are very encyclopedic, as this one is, and do not incorporate sales figures or the like. The aforementioned Bulbasaur, as well as Link (Legend of Zelda), Lakitu, and Wario are all fine examples, and Torchic is referenced much better than just about all of them. If something is fictitious, an encyclopedic entry will reference the fictitious material, since it is, after all, fictitious in the first place. -- Natalya 22:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

• I'm still slightly unclear, how many "secondary sources" does Torchic need? I've added some more, (I'll go check now) but is there an acceptable figure? Certain things, like the anime and manga stuff, can't be sourced with secondary refs, since it's mainly just the games that are analyzed and reviewed. Anyway, I wouldn't mind some clarification. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  Five if you count reviews and magazine reivews. Does Hasbro merchandise pages count? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing vote to Support - I feel like enough has been done to address the problem of in-universe perspective, I think that the sources used are perfectly acceptable for this type of article, and I feel that this is as good as, if not better than, most featured articles on fictional characters. Good work. The Disco King 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Object - I was neutral in the last FA because of in-universe perspective issues. I now believe all of those have been cleared up, to the great credit of the article. I would support now eagerly, except for one thing, which unforunately is diametrically opposed to an objection above. Sorry! Basically my issue is with some of the prose, in which there are too many explanitory clauses in a single sentence, making it hard to follow. Example:

However, Torchic is the only Fire-type Pokémon, a group of Pokémon with pyro-technic abilities, available between Littleroot Town, the first area of the game, where one can be obtained from Professor Birch, a Pokémon expert, and Fiery Path, a mountainous region around a violent, active volcano several hours into the game.

A bit heavy on the explanations within the sentence. I can agree that it's a good idea to inform readers unfamiliar with pokemon with the terms, but this is a little much. Perhaps for organizational purposes, you could put the explanations in parenthesis instead of using commas? Or is there any way you could put the explanations in a seperate sentence? Because this mangled peice of prose is really awkward... Fieari 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for noting this, I have changed the text to -

However, Torchic is the only Fire-type Pokémon, a group of Pokémon with pyro-technic abilities, available between Littleroot Town, where one can be obtained from Professor Birch, a Pokémon expert, and Fiery Path, a volcanic area several hours into the game.

Is this better? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Support. Fieari 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In Pokémon world viewpoint

I've changed the Characteristics paragraph to -

In the Pokémon universe, all Torchic are covered with a fluffy coat of down. Their small wings are said to be useless for flying; but, as a Torchic evolves into its later forms (Combusken and Blaziken), claws slowly protrude from its wingtips, making it a potentially vicious fighter. The Pokédex describes Torchic as disliking darkness because it prevents them from seeing their surroundings (regardless of proficiency with fire techniques). Before its legs fully develop, a Torchic stays with its Pokémon trainer, following behind with unsteady, hopping steps as it learns to walk properly. They are said to have a sac filled with churning fire deep within their stomach, allowing them to give literal "warm hugs" to their trainers. This powerful fire would also serve as a Torchic's ammunition in battles; when attacked, it would retaliate by spitting fireballs (at temperatures of over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), often leaving the foe scorched black.

Is this sufficient? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Since bunchofgrapes objections are addressed I vacation support :) RN 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. Well written. Being similar to Bulbasaur is good, not bad. This isn't creative writing class, it's an encyclopaedia, and we should be delivering information to our readers in the best way possible. If we've found that best way, or at least a really good way, we should keep using it, not write it another way. --Rory096 20:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  It isn't really the same, it's just the headers that are the same, which is the style guide for all the articles. Thank you anyways, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  To be honest, it would probably be better if it were the same. And didn't someone object because it was too similar? --Rory096 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Right, wrong FAC. --Rory096 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• SupportThis is almost a perfect article. No reason why it should not be an FA. I'm also agreeing with HighwayCello here. I don't think that people should be rude to HighwayCello just becuase. If Bulbasaur passes an FAC then so should this, as it is way better then the Bulbasaur page. Raichu 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support; extremely well referenced. One minor point though. Why does the link to Pokémon Chamo-Chamo Pretty have the strange unicode symbols in it? They don't appear in the Chamo-Chamo article itself. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think that's what it's actually called in Japan, (they never released in English speaking countries) I'm not quite sure (it was one of the notes in the sparse section that would have been manga, so I don't know why the gibber is in the title. Should I remove it? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 08:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  It seems that these symbols are just decorations on the manga covers (visible here). So yes, I'd remove it smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Done. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 12:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Also, I'm not quite sure "May's young Torchic was very playful and fun; but, because of its aesthetic appeal, May frequently avoided using it in her Pokémon Contests, contests similar to dog shows that test a Pokémon's appeal from a judge and audience" makes sense, as it seems to be saying that she didn't use it in Pokémon contests because it looked good. What is it supposed to mean? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, yes. She didn't use it because she thought it was too cute, whether she thought it was weak because of it or because it would get dirty from battle. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  I thought the idea of Pokémon contests is that they are judged on beauty/smartness/coolness etc., rather than by whoever is weaker (like a Pokémon battle). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Pokémon have to strong, stats and power come into it as well. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very good job. Nice referencing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  What exactly is well referenced about this article? Every one of the sources is biased, fan type material, and that shows in the article. I can't change the demographics of this project being heavily biased towards video games, but I can try to remind people of reality. HighwayCello is actually willing to claim there are no high quality sources of out of universe information. Under what definition can that be considered good referencing? - Taxman ^Talk 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, for one it has over twice as many inline references as the already-featured Bulbasaur and most claims are backed up with something and the referneces there are basically as "bad" AFAICS. I realize your concern about the obscurity of the subject matter (and thus the "bias" of the sources that is often apparent in something this niche) but I think wikipedia tends to excel for whatever reason on "odd" subjects such as this. RN 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  So the number of low quality references matters now? And more low quality sources makes a better article? I've never said anything about it being an obscure topic, but with absolutely no reliable references, that should be a clue the article is too fluffed up with unreliable material. It would be better as a 5k or less article of only reliable material. "Torchic has appeared in X, Y, and Z that have sold a collective $___.", etc. If it was a short article of only reliable material, that is something I could support as a FA. As it is this is an example of the type of thing we get laughed at for, and for good reason. This is exactly what people were worried about when we instituted the references requirements. With only low quality sources, again, how is this excelling in anything? - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well-written article.--Zxcvbnm 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Here's one that, if promoted, should not be featured on the homepage: it's trivial and short. There are problems in the prose; for example:
  • What is a "definitive type advantage"?
  • "One of the things consistent among most of the Pokémon games"; do you mean: "One of the consistent aspects of most Pokémon games"?
  • Do we really want to hold up this kind of snake as "among Wikipedia's best"? "Torchic evolves, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle,[13] (known as "levelling up") into its Stage-1 form, (the Torchic's middle form) Combusken, at level 16, and evolves into its Stage-2 form, (the Torchic's final form) Blaziken, at Level 36."
  • "Torchic are described as sharing many qualities with a chicken"—Clash of number.
  • "they have also starred in the unpopular Nintendo GameCube game, Pokémon Channel, as well as Pokémon Colosseum and Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness. It also featured as ..."—Redundant alsos, and "as well as" should be the unmarked version ("and").
  • "are a meta-series of adventures separate from those in most of the Pokémon video games"—What do you mean by "separate"? Vague.

It's very listy and very blue; not good enough yet, IMV. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? Tony

I believe "Torchic are described as sharing many qualities with a chicken" is correct, as Torchic is a noun that can be singular and plural at the same time. Type advantage can have a link pointing to the relevant concept, indeed, and I'll try to fix one or two of the others, but some of the issues you bring up don't seem like a problem to me. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No no, you don't get it: use "chickens" plural to match the plural of "Torchic". Have you got someone else to sift through the entire text to fix it? Tony 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article's sourcing is good, and the writing is great. I believe that this article is easily as good as the Bulbasaur one, which, as if anyone needed reminding, is already an FA. Personally, I see nothing to object to. The Halo (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Much better than last time. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support well-written article Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have to agree with Tony; the writing is just not there yet. Here are some examples:
  • The switch between singular and plural to describe Torchic is still not sorted out. "The Torchic . . . is one of the 395 fictional species . . . " (why "the"?), but "Torchic are famous for being one of the three . . . ."
    • "why "the"?" - Torchic is a species, so "the torchic" refers to the torchic as a species, I believe. RN 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's confusing in this case because Torchic are not real and because the article also switches to singular "Torchic" to refer to a specific character. It would be better to change all singular "Torchic" to plural when referring to Torchic as a species. — BrianSmithson 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Words like "wild", "tamed", "warm hugs", and "Starter Pokémon" should be removed from quotes. I have the feeling that the first three are being used as scare quotes, while "Starter Pokémon" should be italicized since it's describing words as words.
  • ". . . it is noted to have the ability to spit scorchng flames at enemies from deep within the pit of its stomach." What's deep within the pit of its stomach, the enemies or the flames? Antecedent problem.
  • In many places, the article makes pseudo-quotations in passive voice and without attribution. For example, "Their small wings are said to be useless for flying . . . " (said by whom?), "They are said to have a sac . . . " (who says?), and "Choosing one as the player's starting Pokémon is considered more difficult . . . " (considered by whom?). Recast in active voice and say exactly who said these things.
  • Bits of the article are written from an in-universe perspective (i.e., the perspective of the fiction itself). Try to ground these with real-world language that makes it clear that Torchic is not a real creature. For example, "Before its legs fully develop, a Torchic stays with its Pokémon trainer . . ." becomes "As depicted in Episode 27 of the anime, a Torchic stays with its Pokémon trainer before its legs develop . . . ."
  • "This powerful fire would also serve as Torchic's ammunition in battles; when attacked, it would retaliate by spitting fireballs . . . ." Why this odd shift to using "would"? Always describe fiction and gameplay in the present tense.
  • "Grass-type Pokémon . . . are very popular early in the game . . . . " Very popular with whom? Players? Characters in the game? Make this clear. If you mean to say "common", say "common".
  • ". . . it was never grouped as a Flying-type Pokémon . . . . " Do you mean " . . . it has never been grouped as a Flying-type Pokémon . . . "?
  • "Although Torchic is described as having many chicken-like qualities, including weak wings, it was never grouped as a Flying-type Pokémon, making learnable Flying-type moves such as Peck and Mirror Move not particularly powerful compared to its Fire-type attacks, since Torchic is a Fire Pokémon, its Fire attacks would be stronger than other types of attacks." Whew! This is a run-on sentence and a comma splice. Break this up into digestible chunks.
  • "the unpopular Nintendo GameCube game " and "the more popular Pokémon Colosseum". Popular or unpopular according to whom? This is the type of statement that needs to be backed up with a source citation.
  • The name Pokémon should be italicized throughout when it is used as the title of the media franchise or game in general.

That is what I found after reading the first page of a four-page printout (and note that fixing these specific problems is good, but it will not address the larger problem of the rest of the article). The article needs some fine-toothed copy editing if it is to make Featured status. — BrianSmithson 02:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per BrianSmithson and Tony. This article is certainly one of the better Poke-articles, and probably could be fixed up without too much work, but still needs the prose to be cleaned up a bit. In addition to the specific points made above, some minor points:
  • In the "other media" section, the lines about Torchic being portrayed as attractive seem to belong in the video game and anime section
  • May is described as Ash's "female companion from the Hoenn region ownward". It would be better to describe this in terms of what seasons she was on the series for, rather than in terms of the regions they travel through. Also, "female companion" is ambigious -- couldn't she just be called a "travelling companion"? Is there something important about her being a girl?
  • The trading card section needs to be better explained for someone who's never played the playing card game before. What does it mean to "knock out" a player's cards? What's a basic type, or a stage-2 pokemon? What do EX "Ruby and Sapphire, EX Dragon, EX Emerald and EX Team Rocket Returns" mean? What's a star card?
  • Torchic have both been featured widely in Nintendo's marketing campaigns for various Pokémon video games as well as being one of the leading choices for Pokémon memorabilia. This statement should probably be sourced in some way, with an inline cite. I can recall seeing lots of Pikachu products in the world, but is Torchic super-popular for merchandise? Don't they all have a lot of merchandise? I'm definately not an expert here :)

Basically, a lot of little stuff that needs to be cleaned up, but this could reach featured with a little work. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've tried to address some of Brian's critiques (hopefully I didn't screw anything up :|). I'm out of time at the moment (work :)) but have yet one more note - it says "Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal" but seems to ref it to a pokedex entry, which doesn't seem correct. RN 05:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Now that the article seems to have shed an in-universe perspective, and is addressing the copyediting issues, the last issue I see is the reliability of the references. Now IGN and Gamespy and Hasboro are reliable, that I know, but what reassurances do the authors of this article have to give that these various Pokemon websites are reliable primary sources? I would like to know to know which way to go on this article. Thanks, Judgesurreal777 04:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I note that you said "is addressing the copyediting issues", but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Many of the problems I listed in my critique still remain. — BrianSmithson 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, from someone who doesn't know a lick about Pokemon. I spent a good twenty minutes reading through this, and the reviewed the changes made by User:HighwayCello. It is well written and very well referenced, and even I was able to understand it without any knowledge of the subculture. Little tweaks as above, but I think the article is a winner -- Samir धर्म 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)