Talk:Zoroark/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.

---

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

Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 05:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 06:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ooh! Dibs! Nub098765 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Here we go. Feel free to reject any of my suggestions (with justification, of course).

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.	Here are some prose suggestions. Since Zoroark's debut, it... — Wouldn't starting this sentence with, say, Zoroark has since appeared... make the paragraph flow better? I'd understand if it was a new paragraph, but here, it seems to make the paragraph disjointed. In media related to the franchise... — What, exactly, does this entail? What media? Who voices what? You explain later in the article, but rephrasing this to be more clear could be beneficial. With both initially available through a special event in the original game, it is... — These are two clauses with very distinct subjects. I think splitting the sentence up would improve readability and comprehensibility. Zoroark has a unique ability called Illusion, which allows it to disguise itself as any other living creature, including humans, to anyone looking at it. — Is the last part redundant? Or am I misreading this entire sentence? O'Dell Harmon of Game Informer praised it as "one of the premier monsters" introduced in Black and White, they felt it "deserves so much respect is not only due to its great battle skill and cool design" but also the strategic element its ability brought to the game. — I can't grasp this sentence's structure. Is it missing a conjunction? Is the quote placed weirdly? Japón y" Occidente" Hm? Is that its intended formatting? ...described Zoroark as one of the "coolest-looking Pokémon in the franchise" and a design he observed everyone appeared to like... — "a design" feels misplaced. Is there a missing word? Like "as featuring" instead of "a"? Calling it "equal parts haunting and impressive", stated not only... — I assume this is Caballero? There's no subject here, and I'm guessing it's a typo, but I wanted to make sure.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Formatted well. I don't get the hate for left-aligned photos. I personally love 'em. The article otherwise has no outstanding formatting issues I can see.
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.	There is, indeed, a well-formatted list of references.
	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).	Non-primary sources are reliable, and there are no uncited passages.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See spotcheck below.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 10.7% similarity. Definitely no plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All main aspects of Zoroark are discussed in this article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is straightforward and concise, no delving too deep into any one topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I mean, the reception of Zoroark is overwhelmingly positive, so the article kinda must reflect that, which it does. So yes, it's neutral as can be.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very neutral. Besides my copyedits, Kung Fu Man is the only editor who has edited this article for tens of edits.
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 images used in the article are tagged as "fair use", which aligns with their copyright status. The rationales are (surprisingly) in-depth and justify the use of non-free pictures.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The infobox image defines the subject of the article, and the other image clearly depicts a design of Zoroark in development, which is expanded upon in the article. They are relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.

Spotcheck

Since there are 49 refs as of the latest edit upon the publishing of this review, I will check 1/4 of that: 12 refs.

• Ref 5:
• Ref 8:
• Ref 9:
• Ref 10:
• Ref 11:
• Ref 13:
• Ref 18:
• Ref 19:
• Ref 25:
• Ref 26:
• Ref 37:
• Ref 42:

Wow. Great job paraphrasing these sources. I see nothing wrong with this spotcheck. Good work!

Verdict

@Kung Fu Man: This article is impressively close to GA quality, with just a few areas for minor refinement. Great contributions overall, and I commend your work in improving this article. I’ll give you a week to get to these suggestions (though I suspect you won’t need that long!). Looking forward to seeing it reach GA status soon! Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nub098765: Everything should be knocked out, let me know if anything needs touching up!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, seems good now! One more copyedit of mine, and this article, after another read-over, looks good to go. Good job. I wish you luck in your future Wikipedia endeavors! Nub098765 (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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.