Talk:Pikachu

"P1k@chu" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

let people edit. GRDAS (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

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

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)

• 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?
• 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

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pikachu/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 08:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. It's a long article, so I'll go heading by heading. Expect initial comments in 48-72 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 btw, I was wondering if you could review any of the four Doctor Who articles I have GAN'ed; I have seen people asking such things when they review GANs, and you seem to have a lot of experience reviewing articles. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 I can probably take one of them on this week. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Thank You! (They have varying sizes, so you can choose per your wish.) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Pre-review remark- Please divide the article into more paras, espcially but not limited to the critical reception; they almost feel like walls of text, it gets hard to read at times. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 could you clarify a bit on how you want these split/divided? Just want to make sure I understand exactly what you want. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: However you think it seems fit; for example for the second para of the reception an appealing design. She further stated, a split can be made here, in the fourth para and the narrative. The anime's expansion, here- basically, if the paras are really long, divide by subtopic if necessary, per MOS:Paragraph. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 I did some slight tweaking and re-arranging of a few sentences and paragraphs, aiming for a more consistent size across them for flow and to make reading easier. How is that looking to you now?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: it does look better; I'll make my initial comments in the next 24 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 how are your comments going? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 sorry, I have been busy; might take around 24-30 hours more. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 sounds good. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Since Raichu's debut: If it's supposed to be raichu, mention who raichu is first; also, are you sure it's not pikachu?
  • Fixed.  Done
• have also voiced the character including ...: have also voiced the character in some projects.(Bcs Info is already in info-box)
  • Actor information is typically cited in the lead for character articles too?
    • Isn't an infobox part of the lead; yes, but almost all appearances of Pikachu have been voiced by one person, so I think one-off portrayals shouldn't be repeated three times in the article
      • Yes, but that's a shared and agreed upon format. Not meaning to be a stickler, but saying remove it here would just result it in being put back by someone else for the sake of consistency. There are many things the lead and the infobox both cover that the article does too across VG character articles overall.
        • Well, if it's for consistency between articles, some of which are GA and above, then fine, doesn't need a change
• Originally designed to ... Gold and Silver: Is also present in design section, remove, too much detail for lead
  • It's based off Raichu's article handling, a FA, which required that information in its lead.
    • Read that GA, and I wouldn't say it was "required", as it's presence isn't particularly noted; but it's somewhat of a grey area, so I'll allow it, if Raichu doee

Promotion and Merchandise

• Another promotional stunt... Pikachu themed cars: Go chronologically, change position to end of para
  • The cars thing was in 1998, which is long before anything else discussed at the end of the paragraph. The paragraph is currently organized chronologically already, so I don't believe the ordering is an issue. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • My mistake, I assumed it was recent due to the article's date.
• Maybe it's just me, but with it's popularity, I feel like this section could be bigger, maybe you can expand it, if possible?
  • This was kept brief because if we included every bit of promo Pikachu was in, we'd be here all day with how much it's used. We've elected to keep promo to just very notable events (I.e, things like the town renaming, presence in major parades, etc) for simplicity and conciseness's sake, though if there are any major details you feel we're missing I can certainly see about using them to expand the section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Nothing major, the critical reception section covers what I required, remark revoked.

Voice

• Add a line or two for Kate Bristol and Abby Espiritu, as they aren't mentioned except the lead
  • Added. This information was actually in the article when their names were initially added, but must have gotten lost in an edit at some point. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)  Done
• Otani's quote is long, use more of your own words, and sprinkle in parts of her quote
  • I disagree. Her quote isn't really that long, and the information feels better communicated straight from Otani than via a form of paraphrasing, which I feel could lead to misinterpretation of the quote. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Okay, remark revoked

Conception and Development

• First para is mostly just game mechanics, shorten it(for eg- we do not need to state that types are weak and strong against other types, or that we need to catch them all)
  • This is mostly just for understanding of how the Pokémon franchise works so terms do not need to be elaborated upon later in the article. For instance, the types thing is relevant to mention to explain what a type is and why it's relevant, especially since the typing issue is brought up in Pikachu's developmental section later. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Typing is, yes, but not that they are strong or weak (no mention of his wins against Pokemons with type advantage) or catching them all(no mention that as Ash's or anyone's motive)
      • It helps contextualize what a typing is and why it's important within the series, which I feel is helpful for reader understanding. While the Pokedex point is less outwardly helpful, I'd argue it's at least useful for contextualizing why certain in-game aspects are important (Such as Pikachu's rarity in Gen 1, why these forms of Pikachu are relevant to players, etc). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Okay, remark revoked(I'm somewhat busy, so it will take some time reviewing the references, Pokelego999.) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

          @DoctorWhoFan91 That's fine. Take as much time as needed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Localization and as a mascot

• Mention that Ishihara said it recently, not close to Pikachu's debut abroad
  • I don't believe the current wording is implying that the quote was said at that time. The current phrasing of "According to..." communicates that Ishihara is referring to an event in the past. I feel any other wording would complicate the sentence's flow and ability to convey information, though if you have any suggestions I'd be happy to hear them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • It was the tenses that were confusing me; I added the word had twice, as the tense should be past perfect, not past simple  Done

Spot-check

Checking every 12th ref in general (IA is down, so some of them won't be)

• Ref-1: Nishida Atsuko, Pikachu's designer (translated)
• Ref-15: influence of the anime series
• Ref-25: ppeal to both “boys and girls.”
• Ref-37: Black and White ... Pikachu wasn’t part of the main game.
• Ref-49: speak into the microphone, it creates a bubble in-game
• Ref-61: characters revealed ... and Pikachu
• Ref-72: fur ... fluctuated ... fur to filming locations
• Ref-85: 2001's Macy’s Thanksgiving Day festivities.
• Ref-97: allegedly embezzled a box of Pokémon cards
• Ref-110: 12. Pikachu
• Ref-123: shouldn't his Pikachu ... level 1,000,000 by now?
• Ref-133: joining protests in Chile ... Aunt Pikachu ... elected

Overall

Pokelego999, Kung Fu Man: I'm going heading by heading for now, and have checked these two headings at the moment. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Replies to your replies Kung Fu Man. Read through Appearances as well; there were two minor changes so I fixed them myself; changes made in the previous GAN reviews is making this review quite easier than I initially thought it would. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Pokelego999, Kung Fu Man, added more remarks, only References and Spot-check review left. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: I've responded to your above points. I would appreciate some clarification on some of these. 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Responded to your responses. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 responded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Pokelego999 All issues fixed. Just need to right down the spot-check (in the next 4-30 hours), and I'll pass the article. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Pokelego999, Kung Fu Man, I have performed the spot-check and saw no issues; so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, the article was really well-written and the review was great. Well done, and keep up the good work. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·