Talk:Pikachu
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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
"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)
- Layout and prose:
- I get that it seems like the first paragraph of "concept" seems like it's been established as a boilerplate for Pokemon-related text, but it's just not a great way of starting off the entry. It starts off talking about fictional species of Pokemon without the context of the world in which it takes place, it manages to get a major factual error wrong (the first video games were Red and Green in Japan, not Red and Blue, and conflicts with the lead), and then re-explains (better, in that it expressly clarifies they're animals) what Pokemon are again in the third sentence.
- In a similar vein, the entire article needs a passthrough doublechecking if things are being introduced in a logical way. Right now, for example, the Detective Pikachu film gets name-dropped in the seventh paragraph but not introduced or wikilinked until the following. Likewise, the article section on concept and design follows all this background info until it hits the fifth paragraph, which stops to explain in-universe gameplay and appearance elements that don't directly relate to the design; it feels like you'd be much better off explaining some of this in an Overview section before going into the background design info, because it's a really weird place to try and backfill context if you know nothing about Pikachu. We learn about Ash Ketchum in the video game appearances section but he's not actually given any context until the following anime section, et al.
- Nishida stated that she was fond of squirrels at the time of Pikachu's conception, and so designed several elements of Pikachu to resemble squirrels. She stated that its tail was chosen because she liked squirrel tails, with the tail being shaped like a lightning bolt due to wanting a lightning motif in Pikachu's design. Pikachu's cheek pouches were added to reference how squirrels stored food in their cheeks, making Pikachu do the same with electricity. Satoshi Tajiri named the creature, giving it its mouse-like qualities. This is weirdly long-winded to explain she adopted traits of squirrels into the design, and Tajiri's naming giving "it" mouse-like qualities sounds like talking about the design, when you're in fact only talking about the name? Also who is Tajiri, and why does the article doubt his expertise on Japanese and add the "according to him" bit?
- "This suggestion was scrapped"—"scrapping" a suggestion seems like the wrong word. That would imply they actually did work implementing it rather than just ignoring it.
- In Pokémon Sword and Shield, Pikachu gained access to a special Gigantamax form,[51] which is based off of Pikachu's older, chubbier design.[52] Redundant with design section that already had this info.
- Ash's Pikachu is voiced by Ikue Ōtani in all versions of the anime. Ditto.
- The entire Detective Pikachu section seems like it'd be better off slimmed down and put in the section on the character's appearance. As it is, it's both not about the overall character, and also in between two paragraphs on voice acting that seem far more germane together.
- I'm not sure what the line between merchandise and appearances is, but Pikachu appearing in the trading card game feels like the former.
- The level of detail on the Pikachu floats in the Macy's Day Parade really feels undue. The important thing is it's a float, not when specific ones were retired or Introduced.
- The big sticking point for me is the Legacy section. It's not organized well, and generally feels like a grab-bag of factoids loosely strung together. Stuff like the Hong Kong naming change really isn't about Pikachu at all.
- The cultural impact is full of stuff that doesn't really demonstrate a cultural impact. That individuals liked Pikachu enough to name something in their field or dress up in protests is tenuously connected to cultural impact.
- References:
- A bunch of references are missing fields, for example website or author information; some are wikilinked, some aren't, some are capitalized or feature the TLD, others don't.
- Others use the wrong templates, for example this ref (as of writing ref. 125) uses a cite web template when it's a journal entry and should be formatted using {{cite journal}} instead.
- What makes SoraNews24, https://meitantei-pikachu.jp, BizBash, pokemonelite2000.com, etc. reliable sources?
- Considering Pikachu is such a big name, I'd expect to see some more in-depth sourcing. There's no shortage of books that discuss Pokemon's impact; do they not talk about Pikachu?
- A bunch of references are missing fields, for example website or author information; some are wikilinked, some aren't, some are capitalized or feature the TLD, others don't.
- Media:
- The fair use content in the article needs some work. File:Pokémon Pikachu art.png has a reasonable fair use claim as demonstrating what the most enduring representation of the character is, but File:Pikachu artwork for Pokémon Red and Blue.webp is fundamentally "Pikachu but pudgier" and doesn't have a strong fair use claim when you need to argue the article is significantly worse off without it. Detective Pikachu is a small part of the article (and I'd argue could be even smaller,) and hence File:Detective Pikachu Movie Development.webp doesn't seem critical, either. File:Pokémon episode 1 screenshot.png is likewise another purely illustrative usage.
I think at this point the major issue with the article is meeting criterion 1 and 3, and I think it needs more work than the scope of a GAN, so I'm failing it at present. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Followup to GA
[edit]The article is looking better, but there's still some remaining issues.
- Redundancy and overlinking still a problem throughout (most egregiously: In the 2019 film Detective Pikachu, a detective Pikachu is voiced by Ryan Reynolds. For the 2019 live action film Detective Pikachu, the titular character was portrayed by Ryan Reynolds. but also in repetitious prose Originally after evolving into Raichu, Raichu or Super Smash Bros getting mentioned in the overview and then again later as if it hadn't been mentioned already. We get multiple repetitious "Critic X said [this thing that's the same as critic Y]" that gets old fast and should probably get condensed.
- If the idea is to have an overview, then go into appearances, and then go back to development, I think it needs a rethink. Right now development info of the character is split across all three sections.
- Still improperly and inconsistently-formatted refs, such as 36, 45, and 106. Citations using {{sfn}} should probably use {{sfnp}} to match the {{cite web}} formatting.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- 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
- Mid-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