Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll take on this review. If you haven't heard anything from me by this time next week, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


  • The lead seems to focus a lot on gameplay, but contain nothing about its development.
  • Trimmed gameplay a bit and added a sentence on development
  • In the gameplay section, the entire first paragraph is unsourced.
  • A lot of it is general to Pokemon as a whole, so I added an instruction booklet for a previous game (Black) as a source\
  • " If the player then travels to Ten Carat Hill, they will encounter Necrozma, which is said to be highly reminiscent of the Ultra Beasts." i Is this said in the context of the game, or is it a fan speculation? It's hard to tell from here.
  • Removed the "reminiscent of the Ultra Beasts" phrase - it's not stated such in game, and easier this way
  • There are a couple of uses of "in an interview with [blank]"; maybe rephrase?
  • I guess the phrase isn't necessary - removed. Also, it's just a single use?
  • "who also was the producer" - Maybe change that to "who was a co-producer" as there's more than one producer credited for the games.
  • Done
  • You've linked IGN three times: in "Plot", "Development" and "Reception". The first instance is necessary as it's just a description of what the islands feel like, which I think can be communicated without IGN being included in the sentence. As to the second,
  • Uh, is this an unfinished sentence?
  • Yes, sorry. It meant to say that the second wasn't needed if you were cutting down on statements like "in an interview with X, Y said", which has been deal with. The third was just a question of delinking it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, there's an inconsistency with the italicising of website and journal names in the prose.
      • Fixed for the most part, I think
  • Citation 2: Link GamesRadar
    • In fact, generally link to website and journal names in the citations where possible, as there are too many to cite in a simple review.
  • Citation 3: Is there a better source available?
    • Replaced with Nintendo source
  • Citations 7, 10: Include the publisher, if you can.
    • Done
  • Citations 54 and 65: These need filling out properly, look barebones at the moment.
    • 54 is done. Not sure how to fill in 65 - that's a simple web page without any dates on it
  • Citation 55: It's "Destructoid", not "Destructor".
    • You sure? Anyways, done
  • Just to be safe, archive Citations 27, 44, 54, 63, 65, 76 and 77.
    • I think IABot is broken for the time being - mind checking, just in case it's on me?
  • Citation 73: Missing "publisher".
    • Fixed
  • Can you find another source for the Famitsu scores? Nintendo Everything's a little rocky for Wikipedia purposes.
    • Replaced with Gematsu - though that means the X and Y comparison had to go
  • The Reception section needs work. You could expand the prose, include reviewer names, and reduce the number of quotes.
    • Some fixing (partial dequoting and a name)
  • "According to Nintendo of America, Sun and Moon are also the fastest-selling titles in Nintendo's history.[49]" - This belongs in the "Sales" subsection.
    • Moved
  • "Later, it was revealed that these are actually new forms for Necrozma, known as "Dusk Mane" or "Dawn Wings", achieved through absorbing either of the two legendaries, in a similar fashion to Black/White Kyurem and Lusamine's mutated form. Amongst other new Pokémon, three new Ultra Beasts have been confirmed to appear - known initially as UB Assembly, UB Burst[e] and UB Adhesive; later to be revealed as Stakataka, Blacephalon, and Poipole respectively." This entire piece is uncited.
    • Nuked the piece - a bit too much attention to just the few Pokemon considering the amount of text in the section anyways.

This is quite a lot to sort out, so I'll put the article on hold for now. Good luck. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Review noted - will get around to fixing the issues within a week. Will ping when all are addressed. Juxlos (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Juxlos: I've had another look at the article. You seem to have addressed all the issues I raised, though it will needs more eyes and probably a copyeditor's eye if you're planning on taking it further. I'm comfortable giving this article a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: If you want to continue work based on my comments and suggestions, please do. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Will do a final walkthrough of the article this weekend - feel free to make the call, or on Sunday. Juxlos (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, also, thanks for the review! Juxlos (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)