Talk:Kleavor

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kleavor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sparkl (talk · contribs) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See below.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Your average standard reflist.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   See below.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See below.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nothing but quotes from Earwig's copyvio detector.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No concerns.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Opening comments

Looks interesting and simple enough. Will get to this soon. Sparkl^talk 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Images

• All images are tagged and all non-free images have detailed descriptions and rationale.
• All Images are relevant and helpful, and have suitable captions.
• This is optional, but if I were to make a personal suggestion, the image File:Pokemon-Cleavor-Scizor-Scyther.png could be a little bit bigger.
  • How are you feeling about it now?

Broad

• The main aspects have been covered from Conception and design, Appearances, and a well established Critical reception section.
• Regarding being "focused on the topic", the article is not bloated and goes into sufficient detail about Kleavor.

Neutral

• Nothing prominent here. The prose is written factually and in an encyclopedic tone (disregarding the very minor spelling and grammar mistakes). Opinions, statements, and claims are attributed to their respective authors and sources correctly.
• The paragraph about TheGamer's opinion seems pretty large, but I'm going to assume it's there to showcase the negative reception in front of the well-referenced positive reception.

Sources

• There are a couple of situational or unknown sources used in the article (such as DualShockers and ScreenRant). While they aren't of the best quality, as long as the source is not outright unreliable and/or controversial and doesn't violate WP:BLP, they can be used to provide background knowledge and prove basic facts. Higher quality sources are always recommended though.
• Article has reliable sources (USA Today, Paste (magazine) and journal articles) and cites them in their respective places appropriately.

Original research

• This is small but I cannot find a source for ...which is set in the distant past of the region of Sinnoh, the main location of the 2006 games Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. in either of the sources cited in the corresponding paragraph. This can probably be fixed easily by adding one of the citations available in the article.

• For context, the line ...featuring Pokémon designs as they would have appeared hundreds of years prior to the events of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl doesn't explicitly mean that Arceus is set in the Sinnoh region. Therefore, the sentence also probably needs to establish that the Hisui region is the same as the Sinnoh region but set in a different time period, as these two prose segments kind of conflict with each other:

Kleavor was introduced in Pokémon Legends: Arceus, a game set in the franchise's Hisui region...

Kleavor first appears in the 2022 game Pokémon Legends: Arceus, which is set in the distant past of the region of Sinnoh..

• I changed it to "a game set in the Hisui region, a distant past version of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl's Sinnoh region." using the CBR ref I used in the concept section.

Prose

There are a few small grammar and spelling mistakes but nothing too prominent.

Lead and infobox

• Described as a "Noble Pokémon", in Arceus players first encounter it as a boss due to having been driven into a frenzy. Starting off the sentence in past tense sounds repetitive. Consider rephrasing into something like In Arceus, Kleavor is regarded as a "Noble Pokémon" and players first encounter it as a boss due to it being driven into a sudden frenzy.
  • Fixed.

Conception and design

• This section reads well.

Appearances

• A definition of what a "Noble" Pokémon is would be helpful.
  • Added. Lemme know if this works for you, aimed to keep it simple for the reader.
• Kleavor later reappears in the game Pokémon Scarlet and Violet via the Indigo Disk downloadable content. Should be the games
  • Fixed.

Critical reception

• He added that to him Kleavor was an even better design than Scizor... I think opined would be the better word here.
  • Fixed.
• In Henley's eyes Kleavor was "bumpy and obnoxiously overdesigned where Scyther is sleek and simple" and felt more akin to a digimon, characters from a rival brand of the Pokémon franchise. In Henley's eyes sounds informal and digimon should be capitalized. A fix for this could look something like Henley elaborated that Kleavor was "bumpy and obnoxiously overdesigned where Scyther is sleek and simple". She felt that it looked more akin to a Digimon, characters from a rival brand of the Pokémon franchise.
  • Fixed.
• Coupled with questioning the necessity of the Noble Pokemon concept, she felt for a franchise... change to Pokémon and she felt that for a franchise...
  • Fixed.

• The aforementioned paper in Jurnal Barik by Samudra and Islam also examined Kleavor's design in the context of indigenous culture in Japan's history. This can be shortened to Samudra and Islam also examined Kleavor's design in the context of indigenous culture in Japan's history.
  • Fixed.
• ...that faced discrimination and force assimilation during Japan's Meiji Restoration era. Is it supposed to be forced assimilation?
  • Fixed.
• Meanwhile, Edward G. McGowan and Lewis J. Alcott in the journal Geoscience Communication Discussions appreciated how these tribal correlations, particularly Kleavor's reliance on Black Augurite and its similarity to obsidian which the tribe used to make primitive tools. This whole sentence sounds like a dependent clause.
  • Rewrote this a little to be less messy. Let me know if it works better.
• The felt this helped teach aspects of Hokkaido's geology... Switch to They
  • Fixed.

Closing comments

I'm gonna put this article on hold. The problems here are pretty small, so I hope it's not too much trouble. Once everything has been addressed, I will pass the article. Sparkl^talk 00:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Sparkl I think I got all the problems addressed, let me know if anything else sticks out!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Kung Fu Man: Nice work! I went ahead and made some minor changes and after reading the article, I am now happy to give it a pass. It's great seeing so many Pokémon articles being nominated for GA. Sparkl^talk 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)