Talk:Klefki/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Keys. λ NegativeMP1 19:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 just checking in. When would you be able to review the article? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I forgot that I took up this review, to be honest. I'll try to review it at some point, but this review is going to have to be done on mobile while I'm out of state. Please be patient with the rate I post comments when I do get to it. λ NegativeMP1 21:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course, take your time as you feel is needed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Review

Prose

• First line should use Template:nihongo instead of "Known in Japan as"
• "Designed by Ken Sugimori and first introduced in Pokémon X and Y. Klefki is a steel and fairy Pokémon that is known for constantly collecting keys. It was designed by Pokémon graphic designer Mana Ibe and was inspired by old mansions and secret keys." There's two different "Designed by"'s here, who actually made it? Were there two designers? Also there shouldn't be a period after X and Y.
• "It also became a powerful Pokémon in competitive play, being a highly effective Pokémon in Pokémon X and Y's competitive scene." → "It was also a popular Pokémon in the competitive scene for Pokémon X and Y."
• "design mansions" What?
• "several worlds and realms." Don't think mentioning both is necessary since they mean the same thing.
• Group up the citations at the end of "characterizing the design as uninspired, insipid, strange, and an example of Game Freak's "creative bankruptcy"" into a note that starts with the text "Attributed to multiple sources:"
• "Other critics were more positive, with Chris Plante of Polygon, Tyler Treese of GameRevolution, and Kyle Hilliard of Game Informer regarding it as one of their favorite Pokémon." Is there any extended commentary as to why it was one of their favorites? These cited articles are borderline trivial mentions from what I see.

Sources

• Several sources are missing authors, website names, or wikilinking website names. I'd go through and make these sources properly formatted.
• Spotchecks:
  • Reference 7 passed verification in the areas I checked.
  • Reference 19 isn't really reception, more like a trivial mention, but I guess it kinda verifies what its cited to.
  • Reference 33 does not say that Klefki was the authors favorite Pokemon, but rather ambiguously says "I openly admit that if this list were ordered by preference, Klefki would be on top" on a list of the "weirdest Pokemon", not every Pokemon.
• Overall, this article sourcing isn't very high quality, mostly being listicles. It isn't enough to where I'd quickfail it, and I'm certain that this is a marginally notable character, but please be aware that others may have problems with it and that if it were brought to FAC this article would probably fail immediately.

Final comments

I'm going to be brutally honest, this article is rough. It's not enough to where I'd quickfail it, but it has issues in every area. I will give some time for these issues to be addressed, and afterwards I'll make a second judgement and probably more source analysis. λ NegativeMP1 05:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 Hit up your concerns to the best of my ability. Admittedly some of this stuff is just me missing things from the older state article (Since this dates to way back). I've edited the sources to the best of my ability, though let me know if I've missed anything. I've also patched up the Lead. I also grouped up the citations, though I was uncertain of where to put the note given I'm a bit unfamiliar with using these. I've also reworded the bit regarding the favorite Pokémon so it's more accurate to what the authors are saying. Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, we're making good progress, but since I'm still somewhat hesitant on the state of this article, I'm going to be requesting a second opinion from another editor on this review. I feel like it could be good enough, but since the initial version was more rough than I anticipated when I took the review up I feel its probably the best decision. I hope this is okay with you and Cukie. λ NegativeMP1 02:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment @NegativeMP1: I rewrote the design section somewhat, replaced a Valnet reference and replaced the unverified ref with a better one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TWOrantula

• Sup dawg. Heard you needed a second opinion, so I came here. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Pokelego999: Finished. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  @NegativeMP1: Are there any issues I have missed? (Also, is the article good enough to pass?) TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for giving this a second look, and I'm not sure just yet. You did point out a lot of issues and if fixed the article would look much better, but obviously we'll have to wait for the comments to actually be addressed. I'll take another read when the comments are done and see if anything got missed, and/or if the article is still in a rough state. λ NegativeMP1 17:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like the comments are finished. @NegativeMP1: Any final thoughts? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  @NegativeMP1 @TrademarkedTWOrantula I've addressed Tworantula's concerns for the most part, though some of them do need the go-ahead from Tworantula.

  -Noting 1a, are there any other spots in the prose you'd like me to clarify? There's been a lot of work done on the prose but I do want to make sure in case we missed some spots.

  -Noting 2b, most of the listicles are only in the first paragraph to establish the subject, with the bulk being used to support one claim. The only other listicles are the Game Informer source, which is one of many used to establish a point, and the Meristation source, which is used merely to validate a claim the other sources in the paragraph don't clarify. For the most part, the bulk of the sources are not listicles.

  Let me know if you have any other concerns. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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.	Spotted several places where informal expressions were used (e.g. "may be more okay with"). The prose, specifically in the reception section, was hard to read, and I often had to reread some of the sentences. There are some confusing terms such as "secret keys". I have copyedited the article myself, but I still think this article is rough and confusing. Didn't spot any typos, though.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section summarizes article. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not filled with words from the WTW list. Fiction is out-of-universe. List incorporation policy does not apply.
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.	Article contains a reference section. No bare URLs spotted.
	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).	Many reliable sources are cited (according to WP:VG/S), including Kotaku, Game Informer, TheGamer, VG247, Polygon, and IGN. However, a great portion of the sources are listicles. As Pokelego999 mentioned, the listicles are only used to verify a single point. (They are not scattered throughout the article.)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig report states that the top result is at a 3.8% similarity.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The character's conception, design process, appearances, and reception are written about - material that is adequate for an article about a fictional character.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays focused (especially in the reception section).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
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.	Both Klefki and Magneton are tagged with their copyright status, and both are provided with fair use rationales.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Klefki art is relevant. Magneton art helps to clarify the comparison between it and Klefki.
	7. Overall assessment.	Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to side with NegativeMP1 here. Listicles don't really give the article SIGCOV. Apart from this, the article's prose is rusty and clunky to read through. I'd suggest requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors (in WP:GOCE/R).

Quickfail?

• Y Article is stable.
• Y No valid cleanup banners nor citation needed tags spotted.
• Y First GA review.
• Y Earwig shows little copyvios.
• Y Article is in pretty good shape.

Lead

• secret keys - ???
  • This is what is used in the original source. I didn't want to misinterpret their intention, so I kept the text the same. I'd assume, though, that secret keys refers to something like a skeleton key. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Full name would work better instead of "the 17th Pokémon film"
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• It was also a popular Pokémon in the competitive scene of Pokémon X and Y. - Magnemite?? (kinda seems awkward to end the lead with this sentence)
  • Added clarification that it's Klefki. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Prose isn't that bad. Did copyedit some parts myself.

Concept and design

• Try a better word for "appendage" (I would say it looks like a knob)
  • I feel it would be OR to say it's anything more than an appendage, since to my knowledge no source confirms exactly what it is and anything else would be editor interpretation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• having an old history - But history is old???? I'm not sure if "the history of Kalos" works.
  • I think it works. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• What does "secret keys" even mean?
  • Per above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Appearances

• Is it necessary to wikilink countries?
  • Probably not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• where it used its keys to help Pikachu and his friends - Is the Pikachu in the short film explicitly male?
  • To my knowledge, the Pikachu is meant to be Ash Ketchum's, which is explicitly male. I can change it to be gender neutral if that works better, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• identified by writer Imran Khan as the go-to example of issues with modern Pokémon design - Not sure why that's in the topic sentence.
  • Fixed Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• when he originally saw Klefki - The next part of the sentence implies that he saw Klefki's design, so no need for this
  • I feel it's better to keep it this way, since an alternative wording like you're suggesting (Such as "Kotaku writer Zack Zwiezen initially assumed Klefki was a fake design due to its strange premise.") can be potentially more confusing for readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• "fake design" -> "prototype"?
  • This just means fake design (I.e, a design that was not made by the original company, and instead via another source.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• despite the precedence - What??
  • Added some clarifying text to the end. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Is the correct term "double battles"? Can we say "duos" instead?
  • Doubles Battles is the official terminology. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Luckily, after copyediting this article, it looks somewhat readable now. I'll be back with spotchecking.
  • Apologies about the readability. Me and other editors have tried patching it up, but the prose is ancient. Hopefully it's in a better state now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecking

Reference numbers are of this revision

• #1 Y
• #10 Y
• #15 Y (strongly worded, too)
• #20 Y
• #36 Y Y Y