Talk:Jigglypuff/GA1

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.

---

Last updated: 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) by Cocobb8

Estimated finish date: March 25, 2024

Status:  Passed

100% reviewed

   

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

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)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

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

,

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

@Pokelego999, I am starting this review. Please let me know if you have any questions through the review process. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from first read-through:

@Pokelego999: The article reads quite well! I do have a couple things I'd need to see fixed. I know it's a lot: if you need some time to revise those, I can put the GA review on hold for now. Let me know! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cocobb8 I've made the changes you've requested. If anything is still amiss, let me know, though a couple of notes.

1. Balloon is indeed meant to be capitalized, as in the series itself, Pokémon have "categories" that are used as descriptors, which use capitalization. Jigglypuff's is "Balloon Pokémon."
2. The line at the start of the Appearances section is per a template used at the start of all Pokémon species articles. The sentence is there as a result and has been used- with naming alterations- on other GAs, such as Tinkaton and Chandelure.

Let me know if there's any other alterations I need to make or if I need to do anything about the above two points. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Thanks, that checks out wording-related criteria. Will complete reference and media checks by next Monday. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

Jigglypuff is also very well known for singing a lullaby in the Pokémon anime series. Two things here. First, could you wikilink to the anime series here instead of in the second paragraph? Second, consider changing part of the sentence to is also known, as very well known seems like an audacious claim.

Design and characteristics:

Jigglypuff is a fictional species of Pokémon created for the Pokémon franchise. We already know this? Either remove it or merge it into the first sentence of the article. I know it's needed as the next few sentences are about the franchise, but that sentence can be re-worked.

Deciding to use a name better suited for its jelly-like appearance, the species was renamed "Jigglypuff", a combination of the words "jiggly" and "puff". We already know that it's a combination of jiggly and puff as said in the lead; you may remove it. The only reason you should leave it here is if you wanted to explain more about that part of the sentence, which I don't think you would here.

Known as the Balloon Pokémon (...) Is capitalizing Balloon necessary?

In video games:

Jigglypuff first appears as one of the one hundred and fifty one species of Pokémon in the Pokémon Red and Blue versions. Again, repetition. Consider removing it, unless you want to expand that sentence to include new information.

Since Pokémon X and Y, it is a dual Normal/Fairy type. As someone who has no idea what Pokemon is about, I'm not totally sure what Normal/Fairy type is. How about a little explanation in just a couple words?

(...) game director Masahiro Sakurai selected it to appear due to its similarities to Kirby (...). To appear in what? I know it's in the Smash Bros video games, but you might want to clarify it.

(...)instead of recovering Jigglypuff's health like in its home series(...). What is home series referring to?

In anime:

Jigglypuff's singing can often prove problematic to the series' protagonists, as it causes all around to fall asleep. Is all around referring to everyone (people) around? Might want to be more accurate here.

Jigglypuff's appearances began to decline, eventually making one last appearance in Pokémon: Advanced. It remained absent from the series until Pokémon the Series: Sun and Moon, where it once again became a recurring character. Move in its own paragraph (and potentially expand it if needed), to show that it's not related to Jigglypuff's behaviour in the Pokemon anime series.

Promotion and reception:

A Jigglypuff Bluetooth speaker was made by GameStop’s ThinkGeek brand, and has been published by the Federal Communications Commission. Should it say and has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission instead?

@Pokelego999: The article complies with all Manual of Style guidelines, though I've removed some duplicate links. No issues there. Conducting a spot-check of sources for verifiability, no issues found. I ran Refill, Copyvio detector and IABot, no issues found there either, besides me removing citation 21 (Wikipedia source). This checks out all criteria under 2).

The article is quite stable, no issues found checking the article's history and talk page.

The article is appropriately supported by images, all of which tagged with relevant copyright templates.

This concludes my review of this article.

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.