Talk:Puff-puff (onomatopoeia)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 22:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will hit this up soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six GA Criteria

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

2. No OR, all info 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

-Looks good

History

-"some characters are able to use it as a special technique" Like in-battle ability, or something else? I feel some clarity would help here.

Clarified

Impact

-"The YouTuber Momo Momose, being a fan of the Dragon Quest series, celebrated its 35th anniversary, reproduced a "puff-puff" scene from Dragon Quest while wearing a red bunny suit, including a fade to black." I don't see why this is relevant to the subject, as this Youtuber doesn't seem particularly important, nor does it seem relevant for showing subject impact.

-"Digitally Downloaded writer Matt Sainsbury questioned whether puff-puff being featured in English Dragon Quest games was worth criticism of the scenes that he felt would be inevitable" I'm a bit confused what this is supposed to mean. Could you clarify this?'

Opted to remove both

-I'm a bit concerned by how many sources are being plucked from reviews of Dragon Quest games. I won't fail it on these grounds for the time being, but I would appreciate some form of clarification as to what sources here you feel best display independent notability of the subject so as to verify this subject's notability in case it is to be called into question in the future.

[1] [2] [3] [4]

That said, it's already survived a merge attempt, so I don't expect issues. @Pokelego999: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

-@Cukie Gherkin: Article isn't in terrible shape, but there's a few things above that I feel need to be addressed. Did a few touch-ups myself for grammar and sentence flow, so that should be good for now. Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification on anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]