# Talk:Charizard

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Charizard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005013748/http://www.makefive.com/categories/entertainment/television/best-pokemon/charizard to http://www.makefive.com/categories/entertainment/television/best-pokemon/charizard
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714161821/http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/2.2756/pondering-pokemon-1.255952 to http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/2.2756/pondering-pokemon-1.255952
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324151424/http://www.ugo.com/games/super-smash-bros-characters-charizard to http://www.ugo.com/games/super-smash-bros-characters-charizard
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018171825/http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8988499 to http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8988499
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dailycardinal.com/arts/if-records-were-pokemon-bands-would-only-improve-1.2124211
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Should I put a section of Competitive history? Galefuun (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your original edit because it wasn't formatted properly or in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style. I believe that an "in competitive play" section would be interesting, although I don't believe it works as its own heading, rather a sub-heading under Characteristics. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 03:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Great idea! I made this. TheTiksiBranch (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
This section seems filled with conjecture and rather emotive/subjective language. Just FYI.
Kind Regards 203.221.127.156 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @Greenish Pickle!, @QuicoleJR, @Pokelego999, @Zxcvbnm, @AirshipJungleman29 as the participants in the Good article reassessment from last week.
I'm.. generally confused as to everything that happened there. The article was kept as a GA on the grounds that "Delisting good articles is done when it is determined that the original review was incorrect or no longer applies.", but that's just not the case - per WP:GAR, "is a process used to review and improve good articles that may no longer meet the good article criteria. GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted." And the nominator's concerns were partially ignored - in fact, a good chunk of them still apply.
Particularly, I'm concerned about the verifiability of some sections of the article. The Reception section has a cleanup tag specifically for this purpose - by my guess, about half of it is cited to lists of "top 10 coolest pokémon" and the like - is that really the type of sourcing we want to use? But these issues go deeper into the article - for example, there's an entire section of plot that really seems to be toeing the line of WP:MOSFICT - a lot of it is interpretation and analysis that seems to fall afoul of WP:OR. Compare that to the section about the video games directly above it, which doesn't go nearly as in-depth about the plot and (to me at least) feels much more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Also, the section "Competitive battling" is entirely cited to the previously mentioned listicles and a fanzine. 
I don't think this article is necessarily bad by any means but it does need a sprucing up, for sure. casualdejekyll 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Casualdejekyll, I'm not entirely sure why Greenish Pickle! decided to close the discussion (to be perfectly honest I hadn't noticed), but I have no objection to you renominating it. For what it's worth, the only issue I can see is the WP:MOSFICT issue; if the "listicles" are from reliable sources, I don't see a reason to remove them. Greenish Pickle! referred to "scholarly sources" without providing specifics in their nomination, so if those were found the article could certainly be improved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think someone who is passionate about this topic should try cleaning up the article before renominating anything. Just stripping it of GA status won't really accomplish much. By and large, the problem lies in Reception needing a rewrite.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The GA Reassessment closed before I was able to add anything further to the conversation, but my points still stand and I still agree. I think Charizard has what it takes for GA Status, but the article needs some touch-ups and rewrites, namely things like "Patch up sourcing state in Reception" and fixes/changes on various sections (For instance, Competitive Battling doesn't seem too notable by and large, especially since none of the other Pokemon articles have this section) I'd make changes myself, but I'm pressed for time these days, so I'm not sure I'm too well equipped to handle fixing a Good Article.  Pokelego999 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)