388:
mentioned, or are mentioned in sources that are not readily obtainable. I do not see why these aspects not existing should be held against the article, given what matters for comprehensiveness and understanding of the film's notability are primarily reviews and other such demonstrations of it. If the film itself and later notability tied to it can be understood by the general audience, then I'd say it satisfies the comprehensiveness criteria. Development is also important, but if at least basic details can be verified (As they are now; I'll add the
Variety source later today) it should be fine for audience understanding as to background. Regardless, I will see what other information I can add to this article to further its detail.
425:
an overview of what developmental details happen to exist. So long as it is sufficient enough to the point where readers will not be confused, then it is satisfactory, and I have done my best to make the prose understandable in all areas to avoid confusion. While these details you're listing are very helpful, they are not necessary for a complete understanding of the film and why it is important, and their lack of availability would not be detrimental to that understanding.
433:
in-depth and comprehensive as possible with what information is available to me. If the reviewer has any further concerns regarding the article that may justify a quick fail, then I will understand and likely re-nominate at a later point in the future, but I do believe in its current state that this article can and is currently meeting the GA criteria, as outlined on the criteria page, and that improvements to the article are more than feasible within the allotted time.
348:. 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. With regard to the reception, very little coverage is given to both Japanese and Western contemporary reviews, rather giving
251:-I can't dig up many sources on early reviews. The few I could find were very light and didn't say much, and the bulk of others are inaccessible to me. I searched in News, Books, and Scholar for this, and found little. Without knowing specific sites that did reviews back in the day, I doubt I'll be able to find more with ease, especially given internet reviews were significantly less common in the early 2000s.
429:
before this one. I do agree to some of your points, such as a lack of retrospective reviews, for example, hence why I'll see if I cannot work to expand these areas, but these details do not require a complete article overhaul nor take so much time that a quick fail is preferable. I am curious about your issues with the lead; would you be willing to specify what prose alterations are necessary?
53:
227:
278:-Production, cast, and crew have little to no sourcing existing. I could find nothing verifying them for either the Japanese or English versions, and little to no sourcing in either language. What's there is what I could find, and I did as in-depth a search as I was able to for this. This is about as comprehensive as it can get for the time being.
424:
Not every detail needs complete coverage so long as "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". The article covers the main aspects: It gives an overview of information in all the necessary areas, including by showing reception and impact, illustrating the film's box office and plot, and by giving
447:
Sorry pal but this article requires a lot still to meet the criteria and the supposed lack of online sources seems to not help that. I think it'll be easier just to quick fail it instead of continuing this review like
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy suggested. This article seems more at C-level and would
432:
Either way, it's entirely up to the reviewer as to whether this should be quick-failed or not. I give my assurances that I will be able to address the necessary concerns that this article has within the allotted time, and I give my assurances that I have done my utmost best to make this article as
387:
I should have ample enough time with the week-long period given while an article is placed on hold, and I have more than enough time to do editing this week. I'll try to do an even more thorough search than I have done previously, but I will note that several aspects of development may not even be
428:
Your argument of the article not being in-depth enough is not specified in the GA criteria and is strictly a personal interpretation of how these criteria work. I doubt this can be considered "setting the bar low" when I have strictly followed the criterion used to judge hundreds of Good
Articles
420:
According to the criterion you're citing, criterion 3 (Specifically a, in this case): "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
352:
attention to retrospective reviews from
English-language sources. Furthermore, prose is also problematic, with the lede suffering from length and paragraphing issues, and the infobox is missing much of the credits, e.g. the composer/s, producer/s, editor/s, color process, et cetera (see
403:
I do not see why these aspects not existing should be held against the article, given what matters for comprehensiveness and understanding of the film's notability are primarily reviews and other such demonstrations of
226:), production, cast, and crew (needs more on them in the infobox and lead section), and initial critical reviews. It also has no mention of the 2022 Pokémon Film Festival screening, which has its section on the
295:
Alright, thanks for sorting most of these out so soon, it looks much better. I did a bit of research to help you with the production, and found some reports on the "production announcement" in
January 2002.
248:
thank you for pointing out the
Japanese article! I had actually looked into the Film Festival, but could not dig up sources on it in English or Japanese, so this is very helpful. I will note in a few areas:
222:
My first impression upon reading this article is it isn't covering its subject broadly enough. I see very little written on the plot (which is 349 words and should be at least 400 per
281:
For the time being I've expanded the plot (Admittedly did a bit too much on trimming for conciseness initially, woops) and added the information on the Film
Festival in Reception.
344:
Article fails the "broad" criterion due to lack of vital information on the movie's production history as well as foreign and domestic critical receptions that would satisfy a
91:
58:
81:
365:
137:
133:
63:
118:
411:
377:
267:
110:
86:
299:
208:
189:
167:
369:
37:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
473:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
407:
373:
263:
366:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240910124218/https://variety.com/2003/film/reviews/pokemon-heroes-latios-latias-1200541720/
230:. I suggest you should try to expand your writing on these sections for starters. Will place it on hold in the meantime.
126:
17:
453:
438:
393:
354:
323:
305:
286:
235:
204:
183:
161:
223:
345:
259:
349:
406:
This sense of complacency goes to show that we really have set the bar low for Good
Articles.
318:
I've added what information I could from those two sources. Incredible finds given their age!
103:
449:
434:
389:
319:
315:
301:
282:
245:
231:
219:
200:
179:
157:
368:. Should be quickfailed to give the nominator ample time to work on the article, which is
254:
Actually, you can expand on the
Western critical reception using reviews sampled on
457:
442:
415:
397:
381:
327:
309:
290:
271:
239:
212:
193:
171:
402:
255:
297:
260:
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/pokemon-heroes/critic-reviews/
357:); however, you should be able to retrieve these from the
145:
114:
448:need a lot to get it to even B-level for starters.
228:Japanese Knowledge (XXG)'s version of this article
435:Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999
390:Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999
320:Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999
283:Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999
8:
41:
72:
44:
7:
33:The following discussion is closed.
24:
469:The discussion above is closed.
199:I'll start reviewing this soon.
458:18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
443:17:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
416:16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
398:14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
382:09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
328:01:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
272:09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
310:23:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
291:22:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
240:21:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
213:08:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
194:08:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
421:overviews of large topics."
172:21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
488:
471:Please do not modify it.
408:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy
374:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy
264:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy
35:Please do not modify it.
355:Template:Infobox film
18:Talk:Pokémon Heroes
36:
100:
99:
34:
479:
405:
363:
346:general audience
340:Drive-by comment
150:
141:
122:
54:Copyvio detector
42:
487:
486:
482:
481:
480:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
361:
342:
131:
108:
102:
96:
68:
39:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
485:
483:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
430:
426:
422:
341:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
279:
276:
275:
274:
249:
198:
151:
98:
97:
95:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
74:
70:
69:
67:
66:
64:External links
61:
56:
50:
47:
46:
40:
31:
30:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
484:
472:
459:
455:
451:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
360:
356:
351:
347:
339:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
307:
303:
300:
298:
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
280:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
252:
250:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
196:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
178:
174:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:
144:
139:
135:
130:
129:
125:
120:
116:
112:
107:
106:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
77:
76:
71:
65:
62:
60:
57:
55:
52:
51:
49:
48:
43:
38:
26:
19:
470:
358:
343:
197:
186:
176:
175:
164:
154:
153:
146:
142:
128:Article talk
127:
123:
104:
101:
92:Instructions
32:
450:Eiga-Kevin2
316:Eiga-Kevin2
302:Eiga-Kevin2
246:Eiga-Kevin2
232:Eiga-Kevin2
224:WP:FILMPLOT
220:Pokelego999
201:Eiga-Kevin2
180:Eiga-Kevin2
158:Pokelego999
115:visual edit
256:Metacritic
155:Nominator:
59:Authorship
45:GA toolbox
372:at best.
177:Reviewer:
82:Templates
73:Reviewing
27:GA Review
364:review:
209:contribs
190:contribs
168:contribs
87:Criteria
370:C-class
359:Variety
138:history
119:history
105:Article
350:undue
147:Watch
16:<
454:talk
439:talk
412:talk
394:talk
378:talk
324:talk
306:talk
287:talk
268:talk
236:talk
205:talk
184:talk
162:talk
134:edit
111:edit
404:it.
262:.
456:)
441:)
414:)
396:)
380:)
362:'s
326:)
308:)
289:)
270:)
258::
238:)
211:)
207:-
192:)
170:)
136:|
117:|
113:|
452:(
437:(
410:(
392:(
376:(
322:(
314:@
304:(
285:(
266:(
244:@
234:(
218:@
203:(
187:·
182:(
165:·
160:(
143:·
140:)
132:(
124:·
121:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.