Talk:Mew (Pokémon)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I'm going to review the article for Good Article status. I'll probably make some minor changes to it as I read it, but feel free to let me know I make any mistake. Laurent (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Overall, the article is well written and comprehensive and I didn't notice any major issue. I've noticed that the second paragraph of "Design and characteristics" was not written under a real-world perspective, so I've slighlty rewritten it and I think it's fine now. Before passing the article, I would ask you to clarify what the "TM" and "HM" acronyms stand for, or perhaps they could be replaced by the actual words, as I don't think most people know what they mean (personally, I don't!).

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Well written and didn't see any MoS issues
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Article is well referenced and sources are reliable
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Very comprehensive article
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Seems neutral to me
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No license issue and good choice of images
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The TM/HM issue has been fixed now (hopefully). The leftorium 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be mentioned in the video game section rather than there though (the fact Mew can use any TM/HM I mean).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the "Technical or Hidden Machine" could indeed be mentioned in the video game section, or perhaps in the "Design and characteristics" one. The "Critical reception" section could then simply start with "Due to its balanced statistics and ability to learn any move, Mew is regarded..." Laurent (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be completely honest here, but reading the article again I don't feel it's ready for GA. It's written well for the most part, but some information could be placed better and some feels missing (manga appearances for example). It's definitely getting there though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would I be expected to fix that? I don't own or have access to (nor have I even read) any issues of the manga. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was featured in two volumes of Pokemon Special: [1]. This really ought to be mentioned, although the only source will probably be the manga itself. Most featured articles use actual, storebought books as sources, so having to buy some obscure comic books is unfortunate but it's part of the process if you're going to write an article about this kind of thing.

Actually, looking at that site I just linked, there's a lot of other things that should be in this article. The fact that it's the boss in Pokemon Snap is definitely worth mentioning, for example. I know this is just going for GA, but the character's had so few appearances I would expect to have them all at least mentioned. I'm also pretty underwhelmed with the "In the anime" section: "The backstory of Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew revolves around Mew's mysterious history and how it came to be so powerful." So, what is its mysterious history, and how did it come to be so powerful? —Noisalt (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the character only appears in two volumes, I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it (at least it's not required for GA status). We don't need to mention every single appearance in games either. This is only a GA review so the article doesn't have to be as comprehensive as if it was an FA review. In my opinion, the article is very close to GA status - it covers the subject in sufficient details, it is well written and well referenced. Laurent (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping in, but here is a sample of what could be added in a "In other media" section. Needs a few references, but its a rough draft for you to improve on. --Blake (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After transferring 1,000 Pokémon onto the WiiWare game My Pokémon Ranch, Mew can be traded for any Egg. It can then be transferred to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. In the non-Pokémon-exclusive video games Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee, there is a small chance that a Poké Ball item contains Mew. In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it may leave the player with a CD, a rare item that unlocks additional music in the game. In the Pokémon Adventures manga, Mew debuted where Red and Blue see one in Pallet Town and try to catch it, but fail, and the "phantom Pokémon" was chased by Team Rocket. It later appeared in the FireRed and LeafGreen saga, where it saved Red and the people of Vermilion City from the impending crash of a Team Rocket helicopter.

References are the only reason that that info, along with the stuff about the manga, isn't already in the article. I have found manga and video games that feature Mew on Amazon, but since that isn't a reliable source, I couldn't add it. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't remove stuff just because it isnt referenced. There are plenty of articles with stuff not referenced. Also, like I said, I diddnt expect you to put that whole paragraph in as it is. It was just a rough example of what you were missing. --Blake (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The manga (and the video games as well) can be cited as sources on themselves for basic information (plot synopses, etc.) as long there's no interpretation (WP:PRIMARY). For the more obscure details ("in Brawl there is a small chance that...") I would try the Prima game guides (wouldn't expect it for GA, just something to think about in the future). —Noisalt (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a second opinion regarding the GA review. In my opinion, the article meets the criteria but, since there are objections, I prefer to wait a bit. Laurent (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tez is absolutely right in witholding the info. Primary sources are good for basic info like plot, but for the text described above by Bws, it would be utterly unacceptable. A point, unrelated to the second opinion but that I should bring up, is that I'm not sure how File:PokemonYellowMew.JPG and File:Mewcertificate.jpg meet WP:NFCC. The only aspect of the character that is significantly commented on is the difference in character design and its "cute" appearance, which is satisfied by the infobox image. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is absolutely right. With regard to the images, I think the Game Boy image is critical, since it's not there to show the character's appearance but to show the existence of the glitch (as its existence was rumored for years before it was discovered, long after most people stopped playing the game, a picture adds a lot). I don't have an opinion about the certificate image. —Noisalt (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should still have some mentioned though. Here's a ref for the Pokemon Adventures comic: "Kusaka, Hidenori (1999). Mysterious Mew. Pokémon Adventures. illustrated by Mato. VIZ Media. ISBN 1569313873. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)" I've got nothing for the FireRed/LeafGreen manga after a quick search though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can I source to that? Tezkag72 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean? You describe things that Mew was involved with in the manga and then use the reference. I just updated WikiProject Pokémon's style page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Style#In other Pokémon media for how to reference the manga. --Blake (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what kind of things I can source to the manga reference, but I don't know what information specifically, since I don't really own the manga. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already said what to source up above. Here is the link to the Bulbapedia article about the first appearance of Mew. I am trying to find somewhere that tells about the FRLG event. Bulbapedia hardly has any FRLG articles. I suppose you could check seribii. --Blake (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Pokémon Adventures manga, Mew debuted where Red and Blue see one in Pallet Town and try to catch it, but fail, and the "phantom Pokémon" was chased by Team Rocket. It later appeared in the FireRed and LeafGreen saga, where it saved Red and the people of Vermilion City from the impending crash of a Team Rocket helicopter.

Since no one here owns the manga let's not worry about it. Info on the manga should only be added by someone who's actually read it. Getting a plot summary from Bulbapedia and citing it to the manga isn't going to work (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). Tezkag72's done a great job with sourcing in this article, and Laurent's right, the article's comprehensive enough for a GA. Right now I'm satisfied with the article and I retract my earlier objections. —Noisalt (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have read the manga. I just havent read anywhere after the Ruby and Sapphire chapters. I was pointing out the link to Bulbapedia so Tezkag could read the summary. --Blake (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too will retract my objections then, though will suggest the information be added by an editor at a later time once properly located.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in any case, the information will not be added untill it has been properly sourced and is ready to be put in. I might play around with it in Mew's section of the list before putting it in. --Blake (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everyone's happy with this article so I'll pass it. Good job to the editors who worked on it. —Noisalt (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]