Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Pokémon/archive3

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Pokémon

Pokémon

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I see the potential of the article being a GA or FA but I lack ideas to improve it.

Thanks, Wingwatchers (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

edit

Comments after a quick skim:

  • There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except the lede)   Done Wingwatchers (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very large article, so information should only be included if it directly relates to the series and is the most important information. For example, I do not think a whole paragraph explaining the 1995 copyright is necessary at the end of the "1989–1995: Development of Red & Green" section, or three paragraphs for the ""Dennō Senshi Porygon" incident"
I honestly don't know how to approach shorting it because in addition to being a Porygon dedicated section it also connects various other aspects including how it affected the development of a major movie and the development of the brand. And the rest just briefly explain essential infromation the incident so there is no need to further shorten it. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also note that the last paragraph of ""Dennō Senshi Porygon" incident" stresses that business executives believed the anime to be suspended, not cancelled. This is important as it adds to the explanation on how Pokemon escaped the incident unscathed. - Manifestation (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've never responded to a peer review before. Is it OK if I react here? Here it goes:
  1. ...ok? 🤔
  2. I agree that the article is large. In a way, this was to be expected, because Pokémon is a gargantuan franchise with a huge cultural and economic impact. "Development of Red & Green" could be shortened. "1989–1995: Development of Red & Green" could be shortened. As for the bit about the copyright year: that is one thing that could not be placed in any other article. As for ""Dennō Senshi Porygon" incident", perhaps the third paragraph can be shortened.
  3. This article currently has seven YouTube refs, to wit:
  1. Yes, perhaps there should be more. The "Reception" section currently only discusses the reaction to Pokémania. Maybe the section should be retitled "Reaction to Pokémania (1999-2000)". It could also get its own article.
  2. Sure.
  3. It needs expansion.

- Manifestation (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manifestation:, I agreed that the "Reception" section should be expanded but on what aspect? Should we expand on discussing Pokémania? But I felt that we should discuss other things as well in addition to Pokémania but I dont't really know what? Any ideas? Wingwatchers (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: No, I don't think the ===1999–2000=== subsection under the ==Reception== section needs to be expanded. What I was thinking was: there could be a ===2001–recent===. I actually planned on writing it, but I worked on the article for 1,5 years and I was honestly over it.
A long time ago, we had a Controversy and criticism of Pokémon article, later renamed Criticism of Pokémon. It eventually failed an AfD though. We could create a Reception of Pokémon? - Manifestation (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation, yes that will work. Do you know where we can find sources regarding that? And Do you still have access to the contents of "Controversy and criticism of Pokémon" before it was deleted? Wingwatchers (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time I will work on expanding the Gen 7-9 and Live action sections Wingwatchers (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: Here, but it doesn't amount to much, which is why it was deleted. As for sources, you can access the Wikipedia Library (here). This includes full access to ProQuest, which is what I used. I also set up a website, Poké Sources. It has books on Pokémon, and also has the Google Chrome bookmarks that I used when I worked on the Pokémon article. It contains 2,019 urls, so you'll have a lot to read I guess. 😉 Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation Thanks. I recently have started to notice that the History section is missing Gen 1-3? Are they also indirectly included in the article like Red and Green? Wingwatchers (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: Well, when Pokémon first got started, there were no Generations yet, so it didn't make sense to me to include "Generation 2 (2000–2002)" and "Generation 3 (2002–2006)". I think the Generations terminology only began to occur around the release of Diamond & Pearl (= Gen 4). - Manifestation (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation Thanks. Do you know why the "2017–present: Generation 7–9" is named this way when there are no video games in that section that was released in 2017? Wingwatchers (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: Good point! I guess we should do this? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation, I recently found out that the Let's Go games are part of Gen 7 but they are released in 2018; this messes up the timeline very badly. Do you have any suggestions on how we can resolve it? Wingwatchers (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also do you still have the sources about the Generations terminology? Wingwatchers (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources about the Generations terminology? What does that mean? - Manifestation (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation You mentioned that "When Pokémon first got started, there were no Generations yet." Wingwatchers (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwatchers: Well, that's pretty obvious, right? Nobody was calling Red & Blue Generation 1 when they were first released, because those were the first games. In fact, Gold & Silver were originally supposed to be the last games, with gold and silver being a reference to the gold and silver medals at the end of a race (source). Many people expected, and many parents furiously hoped, that Pokémon would just die out after that. But then came Ruby and Sapphire, and after that Diamond and Pearl, and around that time the generations terminology came about. Accordingly, people began to retrospectively refer to Red/Blue as Gen 1 and Gold/Silver as Gen 2. - Manifestation (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manifestation That is exactly what I want to add in the "Generation IV–VII" section to help clarify potential confusion. Can you tell me where you obtain this information? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: Personal experience, and I have no idea what "potential confusion" it could cause. The only thing that's potentially confusing is you using Roman numbers. Seriously, why would you do that? - Manifestation (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation I mean to clarify potential confusion of not mentioning Generation I and instead skipping to IV. Well, Bullbapedia and some other sources use Roman numerals, and I am quite fond of its aesthetics over numbers so I decided to use it. Plus List of generation IV Pokémon also uses numerals. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation Revisiting the Reception section, I was thinking of retitling "1999–2000" to "Pokémania" and adding a "Criticism" subsection discussing details found here. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Pokémon/archive3&oldid=1179193265"