Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pikachu/3

Pikachu

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Honestly even with just the one delist vote, it feels like nobody is interested in working on this, and the sheer workload to make it a proper GA isn't going to be done with just one person. Multiple nudges to have work done on the article resulted in nothing. Delisting this article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article overrelies mostly on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. It also contains Refbomb, and some of the claim were unsourced. It needs a heavy clean up to fulfill GA criteria. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Reception is really weak for such a massive cultural icon. You'd think it was just another random non-notable Pokemon. The article needs a cleanup and rewrite before it can start to meet GA standards. Less random listicles and clickbait articles saying "Fuck Pikachu" and more book sources denoting Pikachu's cultural impact. Page 38 of Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokemon has a whole section analyzing Pikachu's character design, but is not even cited in the article besides further reading. And so on and so forth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A snippy diversion, apologies.

Reassessment reopened due to GlatorNator's failure to follow the instructions and notify relevant WikiProjects; they are requested to do so in future. This will be kept open for at least a further week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, you don't need to be snippy about it. Panini! • 🥪 02:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am already aware that this is entirely my fault. I don't think this reply makes me "snippy", since I already went in his talkpage. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nono, the other user. "Failure to follow instructions" is technically true, but there's no need to highlight this detail by painting you in a bad light. We all make mistakes from time to time. Panini! • 🥪 04:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, thanks for clarifying. Its fine, I already experienced such thing on Kefka Palazzo GAR page. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, but some mistakes are more annoying than others, especially when the editor has seemingly shown more interest in delisting articles than keeping them {see their talk). Removed the highlighting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bold of you to say that. I've cleaned up multiple GA articles, thou some of them needed to be rewritten or expanded to meet its GA criteria, thats why I ended up nominating them for GAR like Kefka or this one. I admit im new at GAR thing. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.