Talk:Pikachu/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominator: 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vibrantzin (talk · contribs) 02:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I plan on reviewing the 'Pikachu' page for the good article nominations. Good luck!

Signed, Vibrantzin.

Review
Thank you for considering to apply for an application to adjust the Pikachu page onto the good article status. However, I cannot pass it based on some conditions. First, I feel like it often goes too much into detail about some minor details about the topic. Secondly, long periods of text often went by without sources. Finally, some information seems to be irrelevant.

An instance I believe that these issues occur may be found at Pikachu, Cultural impact. Only two mentions were written in this section and has a less variety of information unlike the Critical reception section.

It should not take too long to fix it. I will set the page on hold for a certain amount of time.

Taken directly from the Wikipedia article "Good article criteria".

'''1. Well-written: ''' As far as I can tell, there are no glaring grammatical mistakes that need to be addressed.

'''2. Verifiable with no original research: ''' There are no self-studies, as it is practically impossible to do so. All explanations are quoted and/or cited.

'''3. Broad in its coverage: ''' Some issues need to be addressed in this section. Please see above for comments.

'''4. Neutral: ''' Some of the topics overlap with topic 3. Please see above.

'''5. Stable and 6. Illustrated: ''' The article has done exceptional work in these criteria. Great work!

Once again, I will be putting this nomination on hold. This is not a rejection, however, a reviewer can later see if they agree or disagree with my judgment.


 * @ could you elaborate on the specific instances of some of what you mentioned? I made sure to cite practically everything I could, so I'm not sure where long instances without citations are in the article. Additionally, at what points in the article would you say there was minor or irrelevant detail? I will also note that the cultural impact section you cite has more than just two notable mentions. I do agree on size and can take a look to see if I can bolster it further, but it is much larger than you're making it out to be.


 * Since you are new to reviewing, I will say that as a rule of thumb, you should always point out every individual point you feel should either be elaborated on, fixed, or changed. This allows the nominator to better be able to fix issues you point out. If it's not too much, would be willing to go back through the article and point out individual places that could do with fixing? I feel I will better be able to address your concerns that way.


 * Also, two additional points.
 * 1. If you are using the WikiText editor, and not visual edits, you can sign your posts using four tildes. Given your earlier usage of a more literal "Signed, ..." I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this, since this will allow for others to more easily reply to your posts and also enable for a better of understanding of who is writing something in a discussion.


 * 2. I am confused by your closing comment of "This is not a rejection, however, a reviewer can later see if they agree or disagree with my judgment." While you can request for an additional opinion, you seem to be confident in your ability to review the article adequately, and as such you should be the one acting as the final closer of the argument. As you have placed this on hold so there is time for improvement, there is no need for closing yet, but I do just want you to be aware that unless you specifically ask for someone else to do it, you, as the initial reviewer, have the final say in whether this article passes the nomination or not.


 * All in all, as a TLDR for above, I do request you go back through the article and review individual points where I can better improve the article. For a reference, I'll link one of the more thorough Good Article nominations I've done in the past, specifically for Mimikyu: Talk:Mimikyu/GA1. I would ignore the bit on citation style since that isn't too relevant here, but I do hope you can use this as a reference for how a standard GAN is done, at least from the reviewer's side of things. I will note that this does not use the Six GA Criteria, but many other reviewers do use it, so don't feel dissuaded from using it. I hope it helps in general, but for now, I would greatly appreciate, if possible, a brief re-run lookthrough for the purposes of a quality GA nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not the main reviewer, but I did quickly skim the article. I don't see where "long periods of text often went by without sources" or "some information seems to be irrelevant". If the reviewer can point out these parts of the article it would be helpful in correcting the supposed deficiencies.
 * The points I can see that may be detrimental are 1. the meaning of "Gigantamax Form" isn't self explanatory, 2. under "Cultural Impact", the events are not in chronological order, and the connection between the naming of Pikachurin and events in 2021 is not clear. Additionally, what makes the 2016 sculpture notable on its own? Has no other artist created artwork of Pikachu that has received media attention (independent of Nintendo)? Recon  rabbit  19:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)