Talk:Galarian Corsola/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I did a light copyedit prior to this, to help fix some wording folow and also match other articles. However, I feel there's still some issues that need consideration:

Try to wikilink what websites you can, so other editors can check the site's credentials. It helps with article longevity but also helps provide a clearer picture of where views are coming from as a whole, especially as the internet becomes more homogenized.
The journal needs to use a Cite Journal template. Currently it uses Cite Web but that keeps a good chunk of information out, especially the doi, author and so forth.

Now the biggest issue: the reception section is a bit harder to get through. The separation between the paragraphs doesn't feel quite so clear, especially with the design discussion bleeding into both and the journal being split between both. If you could give it another onceover maybe that can help, it led to the point I had to make sure the journal entry cited was the same between both for example. All other sections are looking good, that one just tends to sadly stand out.

I'll keep going with the review after your response, I do want to say I feel this is a very well done article and an enlightening read!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man Still working through your suggestions, but how would you suggest patching up Reception? I'm a bit confused as to how you want me to go about fixing this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 I would make the journal its own paragraph, preferably at the end because it's your biggest gun, but possibly also Game Rant too. One takeaway reading this is it's not clear why their points are separated in the manner they are between the two as neither paragraph seems to be making a distinct discussion point. Both are talking about the design but then waver between that and the climate change discussion. Generally with reception paragraphs you want to build around one point or article, and possibly have the weaker sources that you'd only mention lightly supplement them. Does that help?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man I tried to make changes to the article per your requests. Admittedly I'm unfamiliar with how journal cites work in regards to DOIs, so I am uncertain how to fix the issue with those cites. I additionally re-organized Reception as you felt would work, so hopefully it helps with being able to review it more easily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the refs on those, also did a spotcheck while I was there on 4 and 5 as well as 14 and 23. Everything cited correctly, passing. Well done!

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.