Talk:Squirtle/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joseph Buell (talk · contribs) 17:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I submit this review of the 00:05, 21 April 2024 revision of Squirtle.

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.	Everything is written concisely, correctly, and with necessary explanation of topics to be understood.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
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.	References are placed after every researchable fact.
	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).	All sources are reliable and credible.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The authors argue nothing and only offer cited opinions of others.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing, of images, information, or anything, is taken without appropriate citations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Each main aspect is addressed and expounded on in concise, satisfactory detail.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No aspect of Squirtle is focused on or mentioned too much.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article displays no bias that interferes with statements of facts.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Edits are fairly recent but not overwhelmingly often and never to be spiteful.
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.	Images are used fairly and rightly attributed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The two appropriate images provided are captioned perfectly.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent article entry! A good article.

Joseph Buell (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Joseph Buell[reply]

@Joseph Buell Just checking in. When do you believe you will be able to review the article? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The soonest I can review satisfactorily would likely be June. Joseph Buell (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Buell if I may inquire, when in June? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not. Probably the 31st. Joseph Buell (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Buell: I'm going to close this nomination and open up a new one. Reviewers are expected to actually review the article within a reasonable time frame, not just squat on the review preventing anyone else from doing it, and 6-7 weeks is way outside of a reasonable time frame. Please familiarize yourself with the GAN reviewing process before picking up another review.

Additionally, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Civility, which is one of the central pillars of Wikipedia. Editors are expected to be civil with each other, and your rude reply above crosses the line. --Pres N 19:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]