Talk:Pinsir/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Yue (talk · contribs) 00:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this GA nomination. I will leave comments and complete my initial review over the next few days. Yue🌙 00:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Quick initial scan

@Kung Fu Man: The sources cited and images used are fine, with access dates, captions, fair use rationales, etc. ~~all~~ mostly in order. I noticed a typo in one of the source' authorship, which I fixed. You also probably want the abandoned Pinsir evolution image right under the Design section heading or else mobile readers will not see it when reading that section, which contains information relevant to the image. Yue🌙 00:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed citations 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 33, 37 do not have links. The GA will not fail because of this, but it would be helpful to readers if you add a link to any open access archives you used or even a reference site (e.g. Google Books, the journal's page for a scholarly article). I plan on spot checking a few of these citations; in those cases I will add a link myself if I find an appropriate one. Yue🌙 00:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding wikipedia frowns on linking to archived backups of books and google books directly due to copyright concerns. At least I've had it brought up in the past, though not sure if there's a thorough consensus on that. If it helps, some of the above were source checked for the same information in Raichu's FAC, which should have the links there also.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]