Talk:Pikachu/GA1: Difference between revisions
ChristieBot (talk | contribs) m Adding nominator information |
Vibrantzin (talk | contribs) The reviewer, or I, listed my review. I will be changing the status of this page accordingly. |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<!-- Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. So that the review can be kept within a single section, please do not use level 2 headers (==...==) below to break up the review. Use level 3 (===...===), level 4 and so on.--> |
<!-- Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. So that the review can be kept within a single section, please do not use level 2 headers (==...==) below to break up the review. Use level 3 (===...===), level 4 and so on.--> |
||
Hello! I plan on reviewing the 'Pikachu' page for the good article nominations. Signed, Vibrantzin. |
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|Pikachu, Cultural impact]]. Only two mentions were written in this section and has a less variety of information unlike the [[Pikachu# Critical reception|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|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. |
|||
Revision as of 00:38, 23 May 2024
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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
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.