Talk:Fuecoco/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: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Will review this! Comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 @Cukie Gherkin Here are my short comments, hope they can be addressed. :) Arconning (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Arconning I believe I've addressed all relevant prose issues. I additionally found an Inverse source to replace the CBR source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 @Cukie Gherkin One more issue, the CBR source is still used in the article. Hope this can be fixed. :) Arconning (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Arconning fixed, apologies for missing that. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Prose and MoS

• Mentions of Fire type, Ghost typing, and similar words should be hyphenated.

Lead and infobox

• No issues.

Conception and development

• Just add a little comma after the player assumes the role of a Pokémon Trainer.

Appearances

• No issues.

Critical reception

• No issues.

Image

• Image present is on a free use license which makes sense in this situation.

Refs

• Earwig seems good!
• Random ref check: 1, 7, 11, 14, 18, good.
• After a consensus was made, reference 4 should probably be replaced as it's unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Valnet. Though I'll give a situational pass if there aren't any other sources, as some editors have also deemed it situational per information given. Let me know if you've seen any other reference that could be of us
• Conditional passes on references mentioning ScreenRant.

Misc

• No ongoing edit war, focused and broad information regarding the topic, neutral.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.