Talk:Pikachu/GA3

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 08:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. It's a long article, so I'll go heading by heading. Expect initial comments in 48-72 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 btw, I was wondering if you could review any of the four Doctor Who articles I have GAN'ed; I have seen people asking such things when they review GANs, and you seem to have a lot of experience reviewing articles. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 I can probably take one of them on this week. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Thank You! (They have varying sizes, so you can choose per your wish.) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Pre-review remark- Please divide the article into more paras, espcially but not limited to the critical reception; they almost feel like walls of text, it gets hard to read at times. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 could you clarify a bit on how you want these split/divided? Just want to make sure I understand exactly what you want. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: However you think it seems fit; for example for the second para of the reception an appealing design. She further stated, a split can be made here, in the fourth para and the narrative. The anime's expansion, here- basically, if the paras are really long, divide by subtopic if necessary, per MOS:Paragraph. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 I did some slight tweaking and re-arranging of a few sentences and paragraphs, aiming for a more consistent size across them for flow and to make reading easier. How is that looking to you now?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: it does look better; I'll make my initial comments in the next 24 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 how are your comments going? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 sorry, I have been busy; might take around 24-30 hours more. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 sounds good. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Since Raichu's debut: If it's supposed to be raichu, mention who raichu is first; also, are you sure it's not pikachu?
- Fixed. Done
~~have also voiced the character including ...: have also voiced the character in some projects.(Bcs Info is already in info-box)~~
- Actor information is typically cited in the lead for character articles too?
  - Isn't an infobox part of the lead; yes, but almost all appearances of Pikachu have been voiced by one person, so I think one-off portrayals shouldn't be repeated three times in the article
    - Yes, but that's a shared and agreed upon format. Not meaning to be a stickler, but saying remove it here would just result it in being put back by someone else for the sake of consistency. There are many things the lead and the infobox both cover that the article does too across VG character articles overall.
      - Well, if it's for consistency between articles, some of which are GA and above, then fine, doesn't need a change
~~Originally designed to ... Gold and Silver: Is also present in design section, remove, too much detail for lead~~
- It's based off Raichu's article handling, a FA, which required that information in its lead.
  - Read that GA, and I wouldn't say it was "required", as it's presence isn't particularly noted; but it's somewhat of a grey area, so I'll allow it, if Raichu doee

Promotion and Merchandise

~~Another promotional stunt... Pikachu themed cars: Go chronologically, change position to end of para~~
- The cars thing was in 1998, which is long before anything else discussed at the end of the paragraph. The paragraph is currently organized chronologically already, so I don't believe the ordering is an issue. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, I assumed it was recent due to the article's date.
~~Maybe it's just me, but with it's popularity, I feel like this section could be bigger, maybe you can expand it, if possible?~~
- This was kept brief because if we included every bit of promo Pikachu was in, we'd be here all day with how much it's used. We've elected to keep promo to just very notable events (I.e, things like the town renaming, presence in major parades, etc) for simplicity and conciseness's sake, though if there are any major details you feel we're missing I can certainly see about using them to expand the section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing major, the critical reception section covers what I required, remark revoked.

Voice

Add a line or two for Kate Bristol and Abby Espiritu, as they aren't mentioned except the lead
- Added. This information was actually in the article when their names were initially added, but must have gotten lost in an edit at some point. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Done[reply]
~~Otani's quote is long, use more of your own words, and sprinkle in parts of her quote~~
- I disagree. Her quote isn't really that long, and the information feels better communicated straight from Otani than via a form of paraphrasing, which I feel could lead to misinterpretation of the quote. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, remark revoked

Conception and Development

~~First para is mostly just game mechanics, shorten it(for eg- we do not need to state that types are weak and strong against other types, or that we need to catch them all)~~
- This is mostly just for understanding of how the Pokémon franchise works so terms do not need to be elaborated upon later in the article. For instance, the types thing is relevant to mention to explain what a type is and why it's relevant, especially since the typing issue is brought up in Pikachu's developmental section later. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typing is, yes, but not that they are strong or weak (no mention of his wins against Pokemons with type advantage) or catching them all(no mention that as Ash's or anyone's motive)
    - It helps contextualize what a typing is and why it's important within the series, which I feel is helpful for reader understanding. While the Pokedex point is less outwardly helpful, I'd argue it's at least useful for contextualizing why certain in-game aspects are important (Such as Pikachu's rarity in Gen 1, why these forms of Pikachu are relevant to players, etc). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, remark revoked(I'm somewhat busy, so it will take some time reviewing the references, Pokelego999.) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @DoctorWhoFan91 That's fine. Take as much time as needed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Localization and as a mascot

Mention that Ishihara said it recently, not close to Pikachu's debut abroad
- I don't believe the current wording is implying that the quote was said at that time. The current phrasing of "According to..." communicates that Ishihara is referring to an event in the past. I feel any other wording would complicate the sentence's flow and ability to convey information, though if you have any suggestions I'd be happy to hear them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was the tenses that were confusing me; I added the word had twice, as the tense should be past perfect, not past simple Done

Spot-check

Checking every 12th ref in general (IA is down, so some of them won't be)

Ref-1: Nishida Atsuko, Pikachu's designer (translated)
Ref-15: influence of the anime series
Ref-25: ppeal to both “boys and girls.”
Ref-37: Black and White ... Pikachu wasn’t part of the main game.
Ref-49: speak into the microphone, it creates a bubble in-game
Ref-61: characters revealed ... and Pikachu
Ref-72: fur ... fluctuated ... fur to filming locations
Ref-85: 2001's Macy’s Thanksgiving Day festivities.
Ref-97: allegedly embezzled a box of Pokémon cards
Ref-110: 12. Pikachu
Ref-123: shouldn't his Pikachu ... level 1,000,000 by now?
Ref-133: joining protests in Chile ... Aunt Pikachu ... elected

Overall

Pokelego999, Kung Fu Man: I'm going heading by heading for now, and have checked these two headings at the moment. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to your replies Kung Fu Man. Read through Appearances as well; there were two minor changes so I fixed them myself; changes made in the previous GAN reviews is making this review quite easier than I initially thought it would. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999, Kung Fu Man, added more remarks, only References and Spot-check review left. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91: I've responded to your above points. I would appreciate some clarification on some of these. 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Responded to your responses. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 responded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999 All issues fixed. Just need to right down the spot-check (in the next 4-30 hours), and I'll pass the article. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999, Kung Fu Man, I have performed the spot-check and saw no issues; so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, the article was really well-written and the review was great. Well done, and keep up the good work. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·