Talk:Mawile/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 06:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Another Pokémon species article to review!

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. Most information is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses two fair use images with proper rationale.

Lead

-" First introduced in the video games Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, the development team wanted to push the concept of what a Pokémon could look like compared to previous installments, while the design was finalized by Ken Sugimori." These two points (The dev team versus Sugimori's finalization) seem rather disconnected and should probably be split into different sentences.

-What changes occurred in X and Y? These should have a bit more specification.

Conception and development

-Looks good

Appearances

-The statement that Mawile has appeared in most installments since is not stated in the Game Revolution source. This claim should be verified.

-Mega Evolution isn't really the same as "evolving" as in the game mechanic, and is more akin to a temporary form change than a proper evolution. I'd change the definition used for it in this section to avoid confusion.

Critical reception

-I feel each source having its own paragraph is really fluffing the Reception to appear much larger than it actually is. That's not to say this subject fails notability, but I do feel it should be pared down by having multiple paragraphs in one paragraph instead of multiple (For example, the IGN and Kotaku sources can probably be fused together into one, likewise with the US Gamer and USAToday sources).

-The futakachi-ona image should probably be moved closer to the paragraph discussing that correlation so as to act as a better comparison for readers.

Overall

@Cukie Gherkin: Article looks pretty solid. Patch up the above and this should be good to go. Let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)