Talk:Pokémon Heroes/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 23:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Yovt (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Ping me if I'm not back by next week. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No way, since September? Sorry about that. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Appropriate description of who produced, who stars, what happens, production, and reception. Great work!

Plot

Appropriate description and length.

Cast

Unsure of reference as I am unfamiliar with the Japanese language, though a translation yields desirable results. Reference number 4 is unreliable.

Production

Somewhat on the short side; GA's are more comprehensive.

Box Office and Release

Comprehensive enough.

Marketing

The Legacy section actually appears to be a collection of information on how The Pokémon Company promoted the film and subsequent releases. Of course, this information does not have to go, but a different titling would be appropriate. No prejudice to the body, looks good.

• @Yovt: what would you suggest titling-wise? I named it Legacy as it is covering the film's popularity and later influence in the franchise, and marketing doesn't really seem a proper title since the section is not really discussing how the film was marketed, and moreso it's popularity and usage within the franchise. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Reception

Somewhat comprehensive, a proper collection of critical responses, though can be expanded.

For now this article does have information in some areas, but lacks some level of clarity, specifically in production. The GA criteria requires articles to have "broad coverage" as per criterion 3, and this article does not quite meet that. I suppose the marketing section can remain. Pinging users @Eiga-Kevin2 and @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, who have reviewed this article somewhat in the past, for further input (which would be greatly appreciated). 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yovt Per Criterion 3: "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."

I've researched this movie extensively per last time's GAN, and production information is scarce, even in contemporary sources. Given the rest of the article covers what it needs to, and all information on the film's production that exists is covered here, I believe it covers the broad criterion in terms of covering the subject in as much depth as it can. FA standards are significantly stricter, but what exists in this article's sourcing more than suffices for the purposes of what GA requires in terms of depth.

Reception is basically every source I could dig up regarding reviews of this film. This is everything I could find both in terms of contemporary and retrospective coverage, which is enough to give both sides of critical reception without putting undue weight on either, which addresses the concern of coverage that was brought up during the last GAN. The current Reception should satisfy the broadness criteria as is, given the scope and number of sources included and the range of the sources included.

Will note Source 4 isn't unreliable, as it's a primary citation from the voice actress herself, which is allowed under the specifications at the perennial sources list. Willing to remove if you feel it's unneeded though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)