Talk:Xerneas and Yveltal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 16:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick failing the article due to multiple problematic aspects.


 * 1) Multiple sentences are copyright violations, lifted wholesale from other articles.
 * 2) Copy-pasting within Wikipedia a non-issue per WP:COPYWITHIN. The sentences in question are my own writing in both articles and thus no attribution in the edit history is necessary per WP:NOATT, feel free to check edit histories of both List of Pokémon and List of generation VI Pokémon to verify.
 * 3) Very little substantive reception, notability only established as a Pokémon - and even then, not that notable.
 * 4) A fair number of sentences are unsourced.
 * 5) These instances are based on other WP:VG GAs and are limited to appearances in other media (re: Charizard, Samus Aran)
 * 6) A lot of information in this article is something only a fan would understand, such as what a shiny Pokémon is.
 * 7) Please point them out and I'll be happy to fix. Already handled the shiny aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Multiple sources of dubious reliability, including YouTube.
 * 9) YouTube reference is a direct link to the episode produced by The Pokémon Company mentioned in the sentence it sources; non-issue. All of the sources I've utilized were obtained through WP:VG/S's reliable source custom search and thus should all be acceptable.

In the future, please do not nominate articles until you have personally made an attempt to get them up to a certain level of quality. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Addressed some of the above concerns and will work on others. Additional comments to help with improving the article beyond a quick fail would be greatly appreciated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm an avid Pokémon fan and have had this page on my watchlist for quite some time, and I must say I'm surprised at this rather unfair and unhelpful review. Some of the points appear to be valid criticisms, but this is in no way a comprehensive GA review; none of the criteria are directly referenced and no attempt has been made to justify a quick-fail according to the standards set by WP:GAFAIL. Perhaps more offensive is your admonishment of a veteran content contributor, who, according to their userpage, has principally authored some 163 GAs. Your closing statement would be harsh if directed toward a complete novice, but in addressing one of the project's most prolific GA participants, it's nothing short of appalling in its condescension. That you've summarily denied them the opportunity to address your concerns (at least one of which appears fundamentally misguided) is extremely disappointing to see. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If that is the case, I can offer. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * One source I noticed is Gamer Headlines, which does not appear in the Google special searches for reliable or situational sources unless I'm mistaken.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * My major concern is that the reception section is quite lacking, to the extent that I am not sure if the article can even survive scrutiny on its notability. I have no interest in mergism or deletionism or whatever, but I still am concerned by the lack of reception.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Looking at the talk page, another user has brought up issues of notability, which leads me to believe it could face potential merging or deletion.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * My issue is that the image used cites a user-edited Wiki.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I apologize for my harshness. Upon viewing the arguments, I'm more convinced of the article and should not have behaved so derisively even when I was not. However, I still have two major issues: the lacking reception section and the stability. First off, in terms of actual reception, there are only five sources featured, and looking at them further, there's very little of substance to say of them. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The review is greatly appreciated and no worries on the initial assessment. I've removed the questionable source and added a bit of info on competitive usage. Reception info is limited, though I believe the info present suffices. The article passes WP:N with adequate coverage in media beyond the scope of the parent X and Y games. Pinging if they have additional qualms with notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hiya, thanks for the ping. fwiw, I think my April talk page comment on notability still holds. If the jargon-y sections were rephrased for a general audience, they would be significantly shorter in length and eligible for merger into its parent article. (not watching, please  as needed)   czar  00:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The review is greatly appreciated and no worries on the initial assessment. I've removed the questionable source and added a bit of info on competitive usage. Reception info is limited, though I believe the info present suffices. The article passes WP:N with adequate coverage in media beyond the scope of the parent X and Y games. Pinging if they have additional qualms with notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hiya, thanks for the ping. fwiw, I think my April talk page comment on notability still holds. If the jargon-y sections were rephrased for a general audience, they would be significantly shorter in length and eligible for merger into its parent article. (not watching, please  as needed)   czar  00:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the long wait. I've been busy with other things, but have also been planning on doing a source check to see if I can't find some more examples of notability. I'll let you know when I'm done gathering them. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * During my searches, I was not able to find anything substantive. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)