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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
|
|
| Reviewing |
|
|
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keys. λ NegativeMP1 19:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to be brutally honest, this article is rough. It's not enough to where I'd quickfail it, but it has issues in every area. I will give some time for these issues to be addressed, and afterwards I'll make a second judgement and probably more source analysis. λ NegativeMP1 05:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment @NegativeMP1: I rewrote the design section somewhat, replaced a Valnet reference and replaced the unverified ref with a better one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Spotted several places where informal expressions were used (e.g. "may be more okay with"). The prose, specifically in the reception section, was hard to read, and I often had to reread some of the sentences. There are some confusing terms such as "secret keys". I have copyedited the article myself, but I still think this article is rough and confusing. Didn't spot any typos, though. |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section summarizes article. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not filled with words from the WTW list. Fiction is out-of-universe. List incorporation policy does not apply. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Article contains a reference section. No bare URLs spotted. |
|
|
2b. 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). | Many reliable sources are cited (according to WP:VG/S), including Kotaku, Game Informer, TheGamer, VG247, Polygon, and IGN. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Spotchecking proves there is no original research. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism. | Earwig report states that the top result is at a 3.8% similarity. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The character's conception, design process, appearances, and reception are written about - material that is adequate for an article about a fictional character. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article stays focused (especially in the reception section). |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is neutral. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Both Klefki and Magneton are tagged with their copyright status, and both are provided with fair use rationales. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Klefki art is relevant. Magneton art helps to clarify the comparison between it and Klefki. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to side with NegativeMP1 here. Listicles don't really give the article SIGCOV. Apart from this, the article's prose is rusty and clunky to read through. I'd suggest requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors (inWP:GOCE/R). |
Y Article is stable. Y No valid cleanup banners nor citation needed tags spotted. Y First GA review. Y Earwig shows little copyvios. Y Article is in pretty good shape.Reference numbers are of this revision
Y Y Y (strongly worded, too) Y Y Y YIf I may, while I understand NegativeMP1 and TrademarkedTWOrantula's concerns about the sourcing, I feel there's enough cohesion illustrated here to demonstrate the subject, while weaker, is at least discussed in terms of its own design, and in light of both Generation 1 designs and how things have been seen as declining since its debut. While there are other two other examples of that commentary (the ice cream cones and the garbage bag pokemon), I don't feel many are seen as soundly as a "poster child" for these complaints as Klefki when looking over the sources as a whole, and the reaction it received not only as a back and forth but in light of its competitive success. This will definitely never be a FA, but its existence can be argued as helping readers understand how the Pokemon franchise has been seen through the years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.