Talk:Pikachu
Pikachu is currently a Video games good article nominee. Nominated by Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) at 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Pokémon species, mascot of the Pokémon franchise |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pikachu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Pikachu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Pikachu was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add content on concept section that Pikachu doesnt appear anymore in the 2023 new pokemon season. it isnt that OP
2001:4455:688:5F00:E096:7C6F:D50B:3C3C (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not done for now: It's unclear what this has to do with the concept section: Perhaps you meant the appearances section? Either way, Ash's Pikachu and the entire Pikachu species are different things, in the fiction. casualdejekyll 18:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
"P1k@chu" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect P1k@chu has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § P1k@chu until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
let people edit. GRDAS (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pikachu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 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[edit]
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.
- @Vibrantzin (talk · contribs) 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)? Reconrabbit 19:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pikachu/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
In progress. Hit me up in a week or so if there's no review posted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs pinging you as it's been a week. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. The review is coming along, should have it up tomorrow or the day after. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. The review is coming along, should have it up tomorrow or the day after. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Arts
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Arts
- B-Class vital articles in Arts
- B-Class Pokémon articles
- Top-importance Pokémon articles
- WikiProject Pokémon articles
- B-Class video game articles
- High-importance video game articles
- B-Class Nintendo articles
- Nintendo task force articles
- B-Class video game characters articles
- Top-importance video game characters articles
- Video game characters task force articles
- WikiProject Video games articles
- B-Class anime and manga articles
- High-importance anime and manga articles
- All WikiProject Anime and manga pages
- B-Class television articles
- High-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- B-Class fictional character articles
- WikiProject Fictional characters articles