Talk:Sobble/GA1

GA Review

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) 21:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TappyTurtle (talk · contribs) 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I'm planning to review this by tomorrow (EDT) or so. As part of the current GAN backlog drive, this will be my first GA review so I will have an experienced reviewer check my review. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@TappyTurtle just checking in since it's been a few days since your intended review time. If you need more time before the review because of busyness in real-life or something else, that's fine by me, but I do just want to just make sure of everything just in case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 apologies, i'm getting it done today, it's just that time hasn't totally been on my side lol. So far it's just a few prose concerns anyway. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 22:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@TappyTurtle Fair enough, best of luck with the review. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• The lead is a bit too short; there should be some (small) description of Sobble's design and personality, and it should mention Sobble's popularity like in the body (something like While popular among fans, critical response was mixed, with some reviewers praising Sobble's design and personality, while some were confused as to why Sobble cries, calling it "annoying".)
• For clarity, the first mention of Pokémon Sword and Shield in the body should be in full and linked, like in the lead; The designers noted that the trio of starter Pokémon in Pokémon Sword and Shield are more distinct than previous generations... (though, this may just be my opinion)
• The "Promotion and reception" section feels a little mistitled; there's little info about promotion outside of one official poll which in my opinion barely qualifies as promotional
• "Other writers for The Gamer felt differently. In a discussion with the website's staff examining the franchise's most often hated Pokémon..." Nothing states that they're quite looking at the most-hated Pokémon, just that they're pointing out the least-hateable (from each staff member's perspective)

That's about it, otherwise, it looks good. these are simple enough issues so I will put the review on a 7-day hold.

Note: I made a few minor grammatical edits to the article.

TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 04:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@TappyTurtle I've made some edits per your comments. The lead has been expanded, and I've added some promotion information to Reception (Admittedly brief but it's there now, can't believe I missed that initially). I've hyperlinked the game (Good catch) and I've removed that text from the Reception that I missed when doing my edits on this article. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Looking great, I just have two more concerns about the lead and one for the body (if I may, @Thebiguglyalien):
- The use of quotation marks in the lead's personality description feels a bit weird and unsure (either just unquote "meek" or swap it for another synonym entirely, like "timid")
- There's no indication in the body that Sobble was intended to make players "want to take care of it" specifically, it was a comment made by one designer
- "Sobble is a meek Pokémon, which the designers considered unusual for a starter Pokémon." could be rewritten like "The designers considered Sobble's meek personality as unusual for a starter Pokémon."
TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 20:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@TappyTurtle done, good catch on the lead, completely misremembered the writing when doing that. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

GAN Drive check

Hello! Per the mentorship option at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2024, I'll be helping TappyTurtle and taking a quick look over the review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

TappyTurtle, I'm going to go through each of the criteria so you can make sure you've checked them all. It's often good form to mention you checked something even if there are no issues (but a lot of reviewers are guilty of skipping this, including myself). Most of these are just reminders or things to remember, but make sure you've gone through each of these. Points three through six look fine in my opinion, but I haven't checked whether the article passes well-written or verifiable, so take a close look at those.

• Well-written: Some good copyediting advice here, and I see you checked the lead. Did you check the other MoS pages relevant to this criterion? GA nominations don't usually have layout issues, and there are no lists in this article, so both of those should be fine. But have you checked for words to watch and writing about fiction? There are a lot of types of words to watch, but you'll pretty quickly get a feel of what's probably a word to watch just by how it's used. For writing about fiction, you mainly want to make sure that nothing in the article inadvertently suggests that Sobble is a real life creature. Also good call on making some copyedits yourself; some reviewers can go overboard in making the nominator fix every last comma and typo, which can really bog the review down.
• Verifiable with no original research: I don't see any unreliable sources (marginally reliable sources like ScreenRant and CBR should only be used if nothing else is available, but GA accepts marginally reliable sources as long as they're not the main type of source used in the article). But here's the key: did you check to make sure that the article accurately reflects what's said in the sources, and that the article isn't copied (or nearly copied) from the source? You don't have to check every single one, which would take forever, but the reviewer is expected to skim a few of the sources to check for these things. The article shouldn't include any information that isn't explicitly stated by a source. It's common practice to list the sources you looked at and mention whether you found any issues with each one.
• Broad in its coverage: The article doesn't need to cover everything ever written about the subject, but it should hit the main points. Creation, appearances, promotion, and reception are probably sufficient to say the main aspects were covered for a Pokemon, but it's good to know if this is something you considered while reviewing.
• Neutral: Make sure you checked that it doesn't unduly praise or criticize the Pokemon (emphasis on unduly, if reception is generally positive or negative, that should be covered). Also make sure that no one source or commentator's opinion is given undue weight. I don't see any issues with these at a glance, but it's good to keep in mind.
• Stable: This is very rarely an issue. Basically the article can't pass if it's in the middle of an edit war or you otherwise expect the content to significantly change in the near future. This would also apply if another game was about to come out that redefined Sobble, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
• Illustrated: The images are obviously relevant and have good captions. But they're copyrighted, so you have to check to make sure they have license tags and filled in non-free use rationales on the image pages at File:Sobble.png and File:SobbleCrying.png. They do, so it's good to go.

Let me know if/when you've checked all of these. Verifiable is the most important one to check and describe what you checked, because it's not one that you can tell at a glance whether it's good. Lately there's been increased focus on making sure every review has evidence of spot checks.

Pokelego999, you should be fine without these, but out of curiosity, is there information about the etymologies for its English and Japanese names? Obviously Sobble comes from "sob", but it would be nice if that was said explicitly in a source somewhere, and it would be interesting to know what "Messon" means in Japanese. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Very good advice for the reviewer. I will say they've done a very good job during this review per the points you've mentioned above, but yeah, do make sure to do a spotcheck. Double check some of the sources. This article's relatively small, so you don't need to review too many, but make sure you have checked a decent few of them. Make sure you're also checking a few from multiple areas of the article.

As for the names, I took a look. I couldn't find a source for the English name during my search, and though I'd be damned if something didn't mention it, I can't seem to find it. I did find this Screen Rant source that discusses the origins of Messon though (And brief confirmation of the "Sob" part of Sobble) but that's all, I'm afraid. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If it means anything, Bulbapedia gives the possible explanation of Sobble being "a combination of sob and bubble or dribble." Unfortunately, I can't quite find anything from a reliable source either. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 01:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and advice Thebiguglyalien! I did already check the other MoS pages and didn't find any violations. I checked every source beforehand (decided to just skim through all of them since there's not too many here anyway) and the only discrepancy I found was that fourth point on my initial comment. I did consider coverage, including by checking other GA-class Pokémon articles. And I already checked through the last three criteria and found no issue. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 01:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

TappyTurtle In that case you should be good to go! If you think the article meets the GA criteria, you can go ahead and pass it. If you haven't already, I recommend you add User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool to your account so you can finish the review in a single step. Otherwise you can follow all of the steps listed at WP:GAN/I#PASS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright then, thank you for the help Thebiguglyalien!! And congrats on the GA Pokelego999, nice work! TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 01:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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.