Talk:Galarian Corsola

Should the scope of the page be expanded?

Corsola is a single Pokémon species, with Galarian Corsola just being a variety. In my opinion it seems a little strange to limit the scope of the article to just the Galarian form. After all, if Galarian Corsola is notable, then by definition Corsola is too. I think it would make sense to move the page to Corsola and include more information about the species as a whole, even if the main focus is on the Galarian form because of the number of sources. Does anyone else have any opinions on this? Di (they-them) (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: I think that to justify expanding this page's scope, I should try to find some reliable sources about normal Corsola as well. So here's what I've found so far.

• https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/10/18/i-flew-1750-miles-to-catch-a-pokemon (an IGN article about completionism relating to Corsola being region locked in Pokémon Go)
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2017/08/07/if-anything-pokemon-go-needs-way-more-regional-exclusives/ (a Forbes article discussing Pokémon Go's region locked Pokémon with Corsola being the primary example)

So it seems that there's at least some discussion of non-Galarian Corsola in RS that might justify expanding. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The first article really only gives maybe a sentence of commentary, while the second is more discussing regional Pokémon as a whole more than Corsola. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

All of the discussion around Corsola is around Galarian Corsola exclusively. Anything else I found while looking into Corsola was pretty trivial and/or minor, and due to how distinct the coverage is between them it very much feels like it would come down to a WP:COATRACK situation, where main Corsola is used to buff Galarian Corsola's notability despite Corsola itself not being notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Galarian Corsola/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

So I did a light copyedit prior to this, to help fix some wording folow and also match other articles. However, I feel there's still some issues that need consideration:

• Try to wikilink what websites you can, so other editors can check the site's credentials. It helps with article longevity but also helps provide a clearer picture of where views are coming from as a whole, especially as the internet becomes more homogenized.
• The journal needs to use a Cite Journal template. Currently it uses Cite Web but that keeps a good chunk of information out, especially the doi, author and so forth.

Now the biggest issue: the reception section is a bit harder to get through. The separation between the paragraphs doesn't feel quite so clear, especially with the design discussion bleeding into both and the journal being split between both. If you could give it another onceover maybe that can help, it led to the point I had to make sure the journal entry cited was the same between both for example. All other sections are looking good, that one just tends to sadly stand out.

I'll keep going with the review after your response, I do want to say I feel this is a very well done article and an enlightening read!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man Still working through your suggestions, but how would you suggest patching up Reception? I'm a bit confused as to how you want me to go about fixing this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 I would make the journal its own paragraph, preferably at the end because it's your biggest gun, but possibly also Game Rant too. One takeaway reading this is it's not clear why their points are separated in the manner they are between the two as neither paragraph seems to be making a distinct discussion point. Both are talking about the design but then waver between that and the climate change discussion. Generally with reception paragraphs you want to build around one point or article, and possibly have the weaker sources that you'd only mention lightly supplement them. Does that help?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man I tried to make changes to the article per your requests. Admittedly I'm unfamiliar with how journal cites work in regards to DOIs, so I am uncertain how to fix the issue with those cites. I additionally re-organized Reception as you felt would work, so hopefully it helps with being able to review it more easily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the refs on those, also did a spotcheck while I was there on 4 and 5 as well as 14 and 23. Everything cited correctly, passing. Well done!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.