Talk:Eevee/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So starting off, this is just a light pass to handle major observations. I have a few to bring up:

Infobox

-The voice actors need to be mentioned in the article lead and body itself. The Aoi Yuki ref in particular has some additional information for her, that feels like it'd be good to have in the body.

-Eevee being a Normal-type is only mentioned in the infobox. Also I'm wondering if a better clarification of types, albeit briefly, may be good here as there's such a wide range being discussed.

Evolutions

-the stand alone third paragraph feels like it can be combined with the first, especially since the second paragraph mentions Eeveelutions and it helps the reader understand the nature of the term.

Appearances

-There are several uncited paragraphs, while sometimes this is okay for the purposes of individual games, for characters where they appear in various media it can help with confirmation.

-Some of the gameplay commentary needs to be approached from an angle of the reader not understanding what they're looking at. Z-Moves, Gigantimax, Z-Crystal Eevium Z on their own isn't going to make a lot of sense. You don't have to go wild, but explain these like you're talking to someone that doesn't play these games.

Promotion and reception

-It feels like we can break this paragraph into two at Gita Jackson's statement, what do you think?

I'll do a deeper pass after, but wanted to focus on the bigger issues for now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man I've made the requested changes. Let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 Did some final copyediting myself, but beyound that no complaints. Spot checked sources 4, 45 and 66, all other refs also seem to be correctly handled. I'm happy to pass this. Well done, this was a hard subject to approach!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.