As of 26 April 2024, 19:15 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.
Nominating the article for review as the article has a few conspicuous issues that this process may assist with:
Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than
WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably
WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status.
Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into
WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.
Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels.
VRXCES (
talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Vrxces. Unless I missed something, you have not yet brought these concerns up at
Talk:Pokémon Channel. Per the instructions at the top of the page, talk page discussion is the first requisite step in this process.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time.
VRXCES (
talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Appreciate your guidance - I've added this feedback on the talk page.
VRXCES (
talk) 00:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hold recommend that this FAR is place on hold while the notice period (step 1 above) is conducted.
Z1720 (
talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Step 1 is now complete (with no response) so hold is off.
VRXCES, could you please notify relevant editors and WikiProjects?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevant WikiProject has been notified; I will also reach out to key editors when I can.
VRXCES (
talk) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to FARC no edits to address concerns.
Z1720 (
talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
FARC section
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The quote-citations of the game are pretty strange, but since the material would be fine even without citations per
MOS:PLOTSOURCE, I'm not sure there's really an
FAC criteria issue (although I'm not averse to just removing the citations). Comprehensiveness, on the other hand, is definitely a valid concern, but does anyone have a few examples of good sources that aren't currently being cited? The reason there's no development section may just be that the sources don't talk about it.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 03:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As of 26 April 2024, 19:15 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.
Nominating the article for review as the article has a few conspicuous issues that this process may assist with:
Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than
WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably
WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status.
Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into
WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.
Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels.
VRXCES (
talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Vrxces. Unless I missed something, you have not yet brought these concerns up at
Talk:Pokémon Channel. Per the instructions at the top of the page, talk page discussion is the first requisite step in this process.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time.
VRXCES (
talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Appreciate your guidance - I've added this feedback on the talk page.
VRXCES (
talk) 00:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hold recommend that this FAR is place on hold while the notice period (step 1 above) is conducted.
Z1720 (
talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Step 1 is now complete (with no response) so hold is off.
VRXCES, could you please notify relevant editors and WikiProjects?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevant WikiProject has been notified; I will also reach out to key editors when I can.
VRXCES (
talk) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to FARC no edits to address concerns.
Z1720 (
talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
FARC section
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The quote-citations of the game are pretty strange, but since the material would be fine even without citations per
MOS:PLOTSOURCE, I'm not sure there's really an
FAC criteria issue (although I'm not averse to just removing the citations). Comprehensiveness, on the other hand, is definitely a valid concern, but does anyone have a few examples of good sources that aren't currently being cited? The reason there's no development section may just be that the sources don't talk about it.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 03:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply