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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexandra IDV (talk · contribs) 03:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one!--Alexandra^IDV 03:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• They have later appeared in various merchandise, spinoff titles and animated and printed adaptations of the franchise. Psyduck is voiced by Rikako Aikawa. A Psyduck also appears as part of the main cast in the live-action animated film Pokémon Detective Pikachu. - the voice acting stuff comes right inbetween two sentences about media appearances. I would move the voice acting to the end of the paragraph, so the appearances all are grouped together, and also mention the English voice actor.
• Known as the duck Pokémon - While you do mention in the article body that it is a duck, the Pokédex title "the duck pokémon" is not backed up by any sources.
• Needs to (very briefly) give context for Misty. Just saying that she's a recurring character is enough.
• Italicize Pokémon Concierge as the name of a major creative work.
• There's no source for it being water-type, and it's only mentioned in the infobox.

• while trying to retain the original sprite artist's unique style - at this point, the article is discussing all the sprites, which makes me wonder: were all the sprites made by a single artist? If not, you should change this to plural ("the original sprite artists' unique style").
• I'm assuming the Japanese name is a combination of ko (child) and duck, to mean duckling, but do we have any official word on this? Would be nice to be able to explain both the names' meanings, rather than just the English.
• Psyduck is Pokémon developer Junichi Masuda's favorite Pokémon. - this is neat trivia, but I don't know that it's actually relevant to its design and characteristics unless we can explain how it being Masuda's favorite affected something.
• During the initial pitch of Detective Pikachu, - this is the first time you mention the movie in the article body. Would recommend introducing it to the reader ("the initial pitch of the 2019 film Detective Pikachu"). Also make sure to italicize it, as the name of a major creative work, and link it on its first mention.
• Psyduck was also initially planned to be the cover mascot of the Pokémon, Let's Go! games, - you mention that Pikachu was already decided as one of the mascots, so we shouldn't say Psyduck was planned as "the cover mascot", but rather "one of the cover mascots".

• in the Pokémon series - Since you've also discussed the Pokémon media franchise, I would write this out as "the Pokémon video game series" for clarity. Also, italicize Pokémon here, as the name of a creative work.
• You've already linked Red and Blue, so you don't need to do it again.
• You link to Pokémon (anime) with just "anime", making it seem like the link might lead to anime. I would suggest In the [[Pokémon (anime)|''Pokémon'' anime series]]
• I would introduce Misty very briefly on the first mention of her for some context- at least something like "the major recurring character Misty".
• it often doesn't act - write out contractions

• Italicize "Pokémon Trading Card Game", "Pokémon Concierge", "TheGamer", and "Pokémon anime series" as the names of major creative works.
• Unlink the anime series, since you already link it in the previous section
• You're not actually citing the Coventry Evening Telegraph source, it seems?

• Is Dextraneous reliable? It looks like a fansite. The rest of the sources seem fine.
• I spot-checked the use of 10% of the sources at random. The numbers are as of this revision.
  • 6, Time. OK except for how it doesn't mention Psyduck's Japanese name. An additional source for this detail should be added.
  • 20, Kotaku. OK.
  • 31, The Atlantic. OK.
  • 48, Gizmodo. OK.
  • 50, Kotaku. OK.

• Seems fine, although I think the rationale for including the second image is a little bit weak.
• This is not part of the GA criteria, but I would strongly recommend adding brief, descriptive alt text to the images, to aid readers with impaired vision.

Looks pretty good overall. I have left some comments above, but they're all pretty minor issues - let me know if you have any further questions about them. I will put this review on hold for the usual seven days, and will promote the article to GA when they have been addressed.--Alexandra^IDV 07:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandra IDV I've addressed your concerns, let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Excellent, I will go ahead and promote it now!--Alexandra^IDV 19:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]