Talk:Pokémon Heroes/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 23:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Yovt (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Ping me if I'm not back by next week. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No way, since September? Sorry about that. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Appropriate description of who produced, who stars, what happens, production, and reception. Great work!

Plot

Appropriate description and length.

Cast

Unsure of reference as I am unfamiliar with the Japanese language, though a translation yields desirable results. Reference number 4 is unreliable fine.

Production

Somewhat on the short side; GA's are more comprehensive.

Box Office and Release

Comprehensive enough.

Marketing

The Legacy section actually appears to be a collection of information on how The Pokémon Company promoted the film and subsequent releases. Of course, this information does not have to go, but a different titling would be appropriate. No prejudice to the body, looks good.

• @Yovt: what would you suggest titling-wise? I named it Legacy as it is covering the film's popularity and later influence in the franchise, and marketing doesn't really seem a proper title since the section is not really discussing how the film was marketed, and moreso it's popularity and usage within the franchise. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Reception

Somewhat comprehensive, a proper collection of critical responses, though can be expanded.

For now this article does have information in some areas, but lacks some level of clarity, specifically in production. The GA criteria requires articles to have "broad coverage" as per criterion 3, and this article does not quite meet that. I suppose the marketing section can remain. Pinging users @Eiga-Kevin2 and @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, who have reviewed this article somewhat in the past, for further input (which would be greatly appreciated). 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yovt Per Criterion 3: "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."

I've researched this movie extensively per last time's GAN, and production information is scarce, even in contemporary sources. Given the rest of the article covers what it needs to, and all information on the film's production that exists is covered here, I believe it covers the broad criterion in terms of covering the subject in as much depth as it can. FA standards are significantly stricter, but what exists in this article's sourcing more than suffices for the purposes of what GA requires in terms of depth.

Reception is basically every source I could dig up regarding reviews of this film. This is everything I could find both in terms of contemporary and retrospective coverage, which is enough to give both sides of critical reception without putting undue weight on either, which addresses the concern of coverage that was brought up during the last GAN. The current Reception should satisfy the broadness criteria as is, given the scope and number of sources included and the range of the sources included.

Will note Source 4 isn't unreliable, as it's a primary citation from the voice actress herself, which is allowed under the specifications at the perennial sources list. Willing to remove if you feel it's unneeded though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven taken one more glance to this article (ref 4 can stay). Unfortunately, it does not yet meet the GA criteria and still fails to satisfy a general audience. As stated previously, Casting and development should not just touch on the routine stuff, such as voice acting, writing and directing credits; it should also provide some background on the script development, the filmmakers' motivations in doing the film, date of production, the animation design, canonicity, et cetera. Note that this is not an evaluation against the FA criteria; you are not being asked to expand info like The Dark Knight. Regardless of whether there are or are no more sources, this article is still missing crucial information, and without it, it is not a Good Article, plain and simple. A photo of the city of Venice may or may not be a proper addition. Sorry, but this article does not have enough information to be GA and is therefore On Hold clock until such requirement is met. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yovt I've expanded the production to try and give some more background context to the film's release, as well as utilize some details I had missed in pre-existing sources. Further searches again yielded nothing. Let me know how you feel about this, and if you feel it needs any changes. On your above points, though, I am very confused.

1. What does GENAUD have to do with anything here? That policy is for readability and making sure the writing of the subject communicates what the article is saying. It has nothing to do with sourcing, which is what is being discussed here.
2. Even if GENAUD were to be taken at face value, what it says is that the article must provide a detailed overview of the subject understandable to those unfamiliar with the topic. If you have issues with writing clarity, I can make adjustments as seen fit, but for the sourcing statement, this would only mean that the article provides detailed information based off of what information exists. If all information on the subject is already in the article, how would, say, a knowledgeable reader, expect to find information not in the article? If the information doesn't exist anywhere, then it isn't an issue of the article failing to cover nonexistent information; it's the fact that even those who are digging deep on this subject would be unable to find anything that is not already in the article. This article covers everything readers could hope to know if they wanted to research the subject both on an in-depth level and on a surface level.
3. The quote taken from the prior GAN does not cite any policy, and is purely personal belief on the part of that user not stated in any GA-associated policies. GANs must adhere to the basic guidelines for this kind of thing, and while reviewers can take liberties with what they're reviewing, this nomination is not falling afoul of any particular guideline for depth, and thus is not failing any particular GA criteria as a result.

I apologize if I caused some confusion with the FA statements; it was not my intention to accuse you of anything in your own intentions, and was merely a result of me quoting the policy directly. I understand the hesitancy on your end given this subject is not inherently as strong as other film GAs, but the depth of coverage here is more than enough to meet GA criteria and provide a detailed overview of the subject to the reader, at least in my view. If you're still uncertain, perhaps you could try and get an uninvolved reviewer to look over the article over at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations? Given we seem a bit divided in how we're viewing criteria, a fresh set of eyes on the review might be worthwhile to help determine what should happen here.

As an aside, I did look into the "canonicity" part of the statement from the prior nom, and I did find some info that could be helpful for that. [1] This one already in the article explicitly states where in series canon it takes place, while [2] this one helps clarify the separation between movies and the television series and how the movies tend to function as "standalone" installments. I was admittedly unsure on where to add this, since I'm not sure if it falls under Production or something else. I would appreciate some input on how best you'd want me to incorporate this information. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello again. Firstly, thank you for your attempts at making this a good article. I do not know of many people, or even editors, who would take on the difficult task of finding information on a minor Pokemon film. The fact that you thoroughly analyze review advice and provide substantiated claims to support your position on GA evaluation, all while assuming good faith and being civil, truly goes to show your dedication to improving Wikipedia. Despite sources being in a language other than English, you continue to provide scarce information needed for a GA. Now, I did perform an artificial intelligence search and found this with 3 refs (I do not know of their reliability):

"The 2002 film Pokémon Heroes: Latios and Latias was created as part of the ongoing effort to expand the Pokémon franchise and delve deeper into its lore. The movie aimed to provide a unique cinematic experience by showcasing the legendary Pokémon Latios and Latias, introducing fans to their compelling backstory and the Venice-inspired setting of Alto Mare. It emphasized themes of friendship, sacrifice, and heroism, resonating with the values often highlighted in the Pokémon universe​. Additionally, the film served to support the franchise's commercial and creative growth during the height of Pokémon's global popularity. Its creators used advanced animation techniques to set it apart from earlier movies, enhancing the visual storytelling. This marked a shift toward higher production values as the series matured​. While Pokémon Heroes contributed to the series' lore and charm, its U.S. release faced challenges, such as script modifications and localization issues, which altered some of the original narrative elements."[3][4][5]

I encourage you to incorporate any elements (these or others) you can during these times, and I may come back to pass this or to request a second opinion. Other editors' advice is welcome, and can certainly change my mind on this nomination or review. One again, thank you for your cooperation. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review! I know I'm in opposition in my stance right now, but I do appreciate your thorough look through criteria for this review. A good faith, in-depth review is something I can't complain about, and I appreciate you be willing to listen and help.

I checked the three refs you provided, but unfortunately I doubt any are usable. Bulbagarden is an entirely Wikipedia:USERGEN forum website, and DBpedia seems to be a data extractor using what's already in the Wikipedia article. Tatsugiri is odd, as it seems to be a recent website. While it says it has journalistic staff, it seems to be only run by two people with no credits I can find. I'm leaning toward this source not being usable, especially since it has no clear editorial policy or guidelines.

I'll try and do another look through to see if I can scrounge up some more content that may help with providing greater context or info, but I can't make guarantees since I'm using everything I can find as is. I'll await further discussion on this article and will let you know if I make any further significant additions to the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)