Talk:Mawile

Usefulness?

It looks like Mawile isn't quite as useless as some people are making it out to be. I've seen it used several times on Pokémon Battle Revolution, in which it can hold its own. It's one of the Pokémon to have benefited the most from the 4th-generation benefits: It's acquired the Iron Head and Sucker Punch attacks, both of which do considerable damage. It has a Base of 85 in both Attack and Defense, which means it becomes a physical barrier with just a single Iron Defense. (Sableye...not so much.)

I can look for YouTube videos with Mawile if someone wants me to. Ron Stoppable 09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and update the game info if necessary, but don't go into specifics. By the by, how's Rufus? ;D -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

once again, like i say, wikipedia is not a game guide Sir de wario 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration from redirect

This should almost certainly be returned to a redirect. I understand that it was restored to assist a WikiEdu student, but WP:GNG is unlikely to be met. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoring to redirect as there's been no opposition for a week. -- ferret (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 06:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Another Pokémon species article to review!

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. Most information is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses two fair use images with proper rationale.

Lead

-" First introduced in the video games Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, the development team wanted to push the concept of what a Pokémon could look like compared to previous installments, while the design was finalized by Ken Sugimori." These two points (The dev team versus Sugimori's finalization) seem rather disconnected and should probably be split into different sentences.

• Fixed.

-What changes occurred in X and Y? These should have a bit more specification.

• Fixed.

Conception and development

-Looks good

Appearances

-The statement that Mawile has appeared in most installments since is not stated in the Game Revolution source. This claim should be verified.

I alleviated it by removing the statement and just discussing the games it was verified as being in.

-Mega Evolution isn't really the same as "evolving" as in the game mechanic, and is more akin to a temporary form change than a proper evolution. I'd change the definition used for it in this section to avoid confusion.

I changed instances of 'evolved' to 'transformed' to avoid confusion

Critical reception

-I feel each source having its own paragraph is really fluffing the Reception to appear much larger than it actually is. That's not to say this subject fails notability, but I do feel it should be pared down by having multiple paragraphs in one paragraph instead of multiple (For example, the IGN and Kotaku sources can probably be fused together into one, likewise with the US Gamer and USAToday sources).

• Combined the IGN and Kotaku one, but the USgamer and USA Today refs are pulling in very different directions, one talking about the improvements in X & Y and how they saw them, while the other discussing the character's design not matching its typing.
  • While true, the USA Today refs directly discuss the improvements described by USGamer and then discuss how even with the improvements Mawile is still forgettable, before going into further analysis. To me, these both seem to be highly connected points, because even if they aren't saying the exact same thing, they're still part of one connected discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Overhauled reception to make this work smoother, moved some of Maher's reception up to the first paragraph.

-The futakachi-ona image should probably be moved closer to the paragraph discussing that correlation so as to act as a better comparison for readers.

• Got it as close as I could.

Overall

@Cukie Gherkin: Article looks pretty solid. Patch up the above and this should be good to go. Let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget the spotcheck btw - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: and @Cukie Gherkin: Apologies about not pinging Kung Fu Man the first time. He either wasn't on the nom page or I missed that he was when I did my initial ping. Regardless, just one point above that still needs to be addressed. Aside from that, source spotcheck. I did a random selection of seven sources (About a fourth of the article's sources) for this.

4: While I can't verify this book's contents myself, the book seems reliable and does seem to cover basics such as this at a glance, so I'll assume with good faith that this source is verifying what it says it is.

5: This source doesn't verify that Kucheat is the original Japanese name. While it uses the name in the text body (It translates as Kuchito for me, though I assume that's a translation error on my end) that doesn't verify that it was originally called as such in the Japanese releases of the games before it was ported to the West. I'd get a more specific source on this to properly verify the text contents.

• The kanji is sadly the closest I can get to this, short of finding some way to cite the trademark itself. Most original Pokemon names just aren't cited past the original 151.

8: While it states it's a Pure Steel type, it doesn't verify that this was before XY, and the podcast doesn't mention XY at all. I assume this was a pre-XY podcast given they don't mention the type change at all, but please try and find something that specifically verifies what the text body is saying.

• Replaced with IGN ref that states it's from Ruby and Sapphire, should suffice the "originally" statement.

11: Again, I don't own this guide, but the book itself seems to be a guidebook with in-depth summary of the Pokémon's stats and such, so I trust in good faith the reliability of this one.

15: Verifies Mawile's version exclusivity in Brilliant Diamond.

18: The source does not directly state that Gym Leaders are boss opponents. While it can likely be inferred, for the sake of verification, this needs to be stated literally in the text body.

• Replaced with a Game Rant source that states "Gym Leaders have been a core part of Pokemon’s DNA since day one. In every single mainline game, they serve as the main boss fights, gating a trainer’s progress."

27: Was able to find this one. Verifies that Mawile is based on the futakuchi-onna and that it's a modern day example of such.

Will need you two to patch up a few of the spotchecked sources above. Let me know if you need any clarification on any of these. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man @Cukie Gherkin should be good to go! Happy to pass. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)