Wikipedia:Peer review/List of generation IX Pokémon/archive1

List of generation IX Pokémon

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FL, and wish to get the suggestions of other editors, since I lack prior experience with featured articles and lists and this is the single most unwieldy article I've ever had to work on so far. I intend to take the other eight generation lists on as well, but I'm starting here given how recent the content is. For this review, I'm primarily looking for:

-Copy-editing, to catch typos, strange wordings, or things that could be better phrased in the article.

-Additional context. What additional context does the reader need to understand everything in the article? I've done my best to try and cover the basics but I feel there's more I could do/stuff that slipped through the cracks.

-Reception section. The Reception for this generation is surprisingly very weak, and most of the only significant articles are from TheGamer (While they're a great source, I feel their overuse is lackluster.) I'll take literally any source suggestions or ideas I can get because finding even what I was able to pump out took several hours to research and put together. While this shouldn't impact LISTN, I do wish to have something decent here.

-Conception and design. Not quite sure what to do with it, since outside of some miscellaneous designer confirmations that can be covered in the cells individually, this generation has no design information. Most gens don't, but this list suffers from recency in that regard. I was considering listing the other reveals prior to release in there, akin to the line currently there about the starters, but I'm admittedly unsure and would appreciate feedback on this.

-What overall needs to be done to make it FL ready. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the standards, and though I'm aware of a good chunk of it, I wish to have some more experienced editors take a look over this first so I can make sure I've got everything down and correct.

Thanks, Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

LunaEclipse

Going to start a source review in a few days. I'm busy with two FACs at the moment. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That's alright. Take as much time as you need, and best of luck with your FACs. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• A large majority this list relies on the following sources:
  • Dot Esports (it's reliable but I wouldn't use it for featured content due to some quality concerns)
  • Valnet news sites:
    • ScreenRant, GameRant and TheGamer sources should be replaced with more high quality ones.

lunaeclipse ^(talk) 12:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse I've made sure only to use the aforementioned sources for verification purposes (And not Reception) but either way I plan on looking into replacement sources for some of the ones I know can be easily substituted by higher quality sources (Since I know quite a few of these subjects got covered by stuff like Polygon and the like). The main reason I'm using a good chunk of these is the fact physical characteristics aren't easy to source. It's hard to verify basic claims on their appearances at times. I'll see what I can do since I know some replacements should exist for certain ones but in some cases some of these subjects got very little coverage in comparison to others. Not sure if there's an easy work-around for it but I'll see what I can do.

I will note TheGamer post August 2020 is considered a generally reliable source, regardless of the fact it's Valnet-owned, so using sources from there shouldn't be an issue for FAC.

Do you have any concerns about any of the other things I've addressed in the lead? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

(pinging Pokelego999) lunaeclipse ^(talk) 12:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)