Talk:Fuecoco

Fuecoco has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 15, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Video games: Nintendo / Characters Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

This article is supported by the Video game characters task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Vector Unit (2 participants)
Anton Rayne (9 participants)
Id Tech 2 (disambiguation) (4 participants)
Jeffrey Ventrella (4 participants)
Darkworks (3 participants)
Ayeah Games (2 participants)
Keemokazi (1 participant)
Batboat (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

What about evolutions?[edit]

I don't know where I should start this convo, so I decided to start it here. Some of the pokémon articles feature evolutions/related pokémon as co-subjects. Shouldn't this be for at least a majority of the single subject articles for consistency? XCBRO172 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only really the case if there's a lot of discussion over Fuecoco as an evolutionary line. In the case of Magikarp and Gyarados, Gyarados was merged to Magikarp rather than redirected to the list because it was decided that Gyarados' notability was largely linked to the fact that pretty much all notability discussion about Gyarados was that it evolved from Magikarp. For Sprigatito and Popplio, there was a reasonable amount of commentary about Sprigatito and Popplio's evolutions and how they changed. For Fuecoco, there's a little bit of discussion on Skeledirge, but nearly enough to justify making the article about the evolutionary line. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for explaining. XCBRO172 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happy to help - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Arconning (talk) 06:55, 15 July 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fuecoco/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

Prose and MoS[edit]

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

Lead and infobox[edit]

No issues.

Conception and development[edit]

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

Appearances[edit]

No issues.

Critical reception[edit]

No issues.

Image[edit]

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

Refs[edit]

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[edit]

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.