Talk:Jigglypuff
Jigglypuff 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: March 25, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jigglypuff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Jigglypuff" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
Jigglypuff received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marina's Jigglypuff (Legend of Thunder)
[edit]Should it be noted that Marina's Jigglypuff is shiny? Tsutarja494, the Grass Snake Editor (talk | contribs) 02:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? It has different colored eyes, not body. Shiny Jigglypuff are grey. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Pudding?
[edit]KFM removed the reference that stated "Purin" is the Japanese word for pudding; I suggest we put it back in, since プリン is indeed the way pudding is spelled in katakana, and since we have a reliable source from IGN stating that as the origin for the name. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- If no one responds here, I will add it back then, as no one has presented compelling evidence to doubt this reliable source. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg Nominated for Deletion
[edit]An image used in this article, File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jigglypuff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402134334/http://www.mania.com/pokemon-vol-14-jigglypuff-pop_article_75704.html to http://www.mania.com/pokemon-vol-14-jigglypuff-pop_article_75704.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]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.
Last updated: 15:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC) by Lowercase sigmabot III
Estimated finish date: March 25, 2024
100% reviewed
See what the criteria are and what they are not
1) Well-written
- 1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- 1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
2) Verifiable with no original research
- 2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
- 2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
- 2c) it contains no original research
- 2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
3) Broad in its coverage
- 3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- 3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
4) Neutral:
- 4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5) Stable:
- 5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
- 6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
,
- 6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Overall:
Comments:
[edit]@Pokelego999, I am starting this review. Please let me know if you have any questions through the review process. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments from first read-through:
@Pokelego999: The article reads quite well! I do have a couple things I'd need to see fixed. I know it's a lot: if you need some time to revise those, I can put the GA review on hold for now. Let me know! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Cocobb8 I've made the changes you've requested. If anything is still amiss, let me know, though a couple of notes.
- Balloon is indeed meant to be capitalized, as in the series itself, Pokémon have "categories" that are used as descriptors, which use capitalization. Jigglypuff's is "Balloon Pokémon."
- The line at the start of the Appearances section is per a template used at the start of all Pokémon species articles. The sentence is there as a result and has been used- with naming alterations- on other GAs, such as Tinkaton and Chandelure.
- Let me know if there's any other alterations I need to make or if I need to do anything about the above two points. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999 Thanks, that checks out wording-related criteria. Will complete reference and media checks by next Monday. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Lead:
Jigglypuff is also very well known for singing a lullaby in the Pokémon anime series.
Two things here. First, could you wikilink to the anime series here instead of in the second paragraph? Second, consider changing part of the sentence to is also known
, as very well known
seems like an audacious claim.
Design and characteristics:
Jigglypuff is a fictional species of Pokémon created for the Pokémon franchise.
We already know this? Either remove it or merge it into the first sentence of the article. I know it's needed as the next few sentences are about the franchise, but that sentence can be re-worked.
Deciding to use a name better suited for its jelly-like appearance, the species was renamed "Jigglypuff", a combination of the words "jiggly" and "puff".
We already know that it's a combination of jiggly and puff as said in the lead; you may remove it. The only reason you should leave it here is if you wanted to explain more about that part of the sentence, which I don't think you would here.
Known as the Balloon Pokémon (...)
Is capitalizing Balloon
necessary?
In video games:
Jigglypuff first appears as one of the one hundred and fifty one species of Pokémon in the Pokémon Red and Blue versions.
Again, repetition. Consider removing it, unless you want to expand that sentence to include new information.
Since Pokémon X and Y, it is a dual Normal/Fairy type.
As someone who has no idea what Pokemon is about, I'm not totally sure what Normal/Fairy type is. How about a little explanation in just a couple words?
(...) game director Masahiro Sakurai selected it to appear due to its similarities to Kirby (...)
. To appear in what? I know it's in the Smash Bros video games, but you might want to clarify it.
(...)instead of recovering Jigglypuff's health like in its home series(...)
. What is home series referring to?
In anime:
Jigglypuff's singing can often prove problematic to the series' protagonists, as it causes all around to fall asleep.
Is all around
referring to everyone (people) around? Might want to be more accurate here.
Jigglypuff's appearances began to decline, eventually making one last appearance in Pokémon: Advanced. It remained absent from the series until Pokémon the Series: Sun and Moon, where it once again became a recurring character.
Move in its own paragraph (and potentially expand it if needed), to show that it's not related to Jigglypuff's behaviour in the Pokemon anime series.
Promotion and reception:
A Jigglypuff Bluetooth speaker was made by GameStop’s ThinkGeek brand, and has been published by the Federal Communications Commission.
Should it say and has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission
instead?
@Pokelego999: The article complies with all Manual of Style guidelines, though I've removed some duplicate links. No issues there. Conducting a spot-check of sources for verifiability, no issues found. I ran Refill, Copyvio detector and IABot, no issues found there either, besides me removing citation 21 (Wikipedia source). This checks out all criteria under 2).
The article is quite stable, no issues found checking the article's history and talk page.
The article is appropriately supported by images, all of which tagged with relevant copyright templates.
This concludes my review of this article.
- Wikipedia good articles
- Video games good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class Pokémon articles
- High-importance Pokémon articles
- WikiProject Pokémon articles
- GA-Class video game articles
- Low-importance video game articles
- GA-Class Nintendo articles
- Nintendo task force articles
- GA-Class video game characters articles
- High-importance video game characters articles
- Video game characters task force articles
- WikiProject Video games articles
- GA-Class television articles
- Low-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- GA-Class anime and manga articles
- Low-importance anime and manga articles
- All WikiProject Anime and manga pages
- Anime and manga articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
- GA-Class fictional character articles
- WikiProject Fictional characters articles