Talk:Squirtle

Squirtle is currently a Video games good article nominee. Nominated by Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) at 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: Pokémon species

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Squirtle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Squirtle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Video games: Nintendo / Characters Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

This article is supported by the Video game characters task force (assessed as High-importance).

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA status[edit]

Passed. Appropriate references, gives a good explanation of what the creature is, and has competent sections on what role was played in the video games. I'm somewhat dissapointed the article did not posess a charteristics section like others I'd noted of this type, though. This may be attributed to the data on the creature. -Zero^Talk 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but it's merged with the lead ofr being a bit short. The Pokédex seems to say less about Squirtle than some others. Regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell did this pass and Combusken not? Wikipedia is against chickens! :O H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; I didn't review Combusken. -Zero^Talk 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it has about three times as many refs. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some reviewers are harsher than others, and that's their perogative, I'm afraid. Regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 07:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA removal[edit]

No source for name origin.
Only one source in video games section.
Its ability in R/B against Gym Leaders is irrelevant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super smash bros fighters[edit]

He's playable in ssbb --23.112.40.177 (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

In the Design and charicteristics section, paragraph 2 states "However, host of the show Pokémon Talk claims that Squirtles is based on squirrels, his evidence being that he, "Loves Nuts."" This refences an unofficial YouTube series and should be removed. Time Vault (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

REVIEWER WITHDREW

~~Unsuccessful.~~ TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close updated by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 14:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well claim this too. :D TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 14:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Are you still planning to do this review? CosXZ (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it. I may have bit more than I could chew here. I'd rather let this go, as this is kind of getting in the way of my life. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
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, as shown by a source spot-check:
	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: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above 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.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Squirtle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joseph Buell (talk · contribs) 17:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I submit this review of the 00:05, 21 April 2024 revision of Squirtle.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Everything is written concisely, correctly, and with necessary explanation of topics to be understood.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are placed after every researchable fact.
	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).	All sources are reliable and credible.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The authors argue nothing and only offer cited opinions of others.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing, of images, information, or anything, is taken without appropriate citations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Each main aspect is addressed and expounded on in concise, satisfactory detail.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No aspect of Squirtle is focused on or mentioned too much.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article displays no bias that interferes with statements of facts.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Edits are fairly recent but not overwhelmingly often and never to be spiteful.
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.	Images are used fairly and rightly attributed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The two appropriate images provided are captioned perfectly.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent article entry! A good article.

Joseph Buell (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Joseph Buell[reply]

@Joseph Buell Just checking in. When do you believe you will be able to review the article? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The soonest I can review satisfactorily would likely be June. Joseph Buell (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Buell if I may inquire, when in June? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not. Probably the 31st. Joseph Buell (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Buell: I'm going to close this nomination and open up a new one. Reviewers are expected to actually review the article within a reasonable time frame, not just squat on the review preventing anyone else from doing it, and 6-7 weeks is way outside of a reasonable time frame. Please familiarize yourself with the GAN reviewing process before picking up another review.

Additionally, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Civility, which is one of the central pillars of Wikipedia. Editors are expected to be civil with each other, and your rude reply above crosses the line. --Pres N 19:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Squirtle/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 20:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm taking on this review. It's a pretty short article, but there's only so much that can be written about Squirtle in this venue. Recon rabbit

Lead[edit]

Design and characteristics[edit]

"Pokémon Red & Blue – A Look Back At The 20-Year Journey To Catch ‘Em All" states that the first games in the series were Red and Green. The article here states that it started in Japan with Red and Blue.

Appearances[edit]

"In the video games" as a header is a little strange - is this consistent with other character articles? If not, I would think "In video games" or just "Video games" is a more natural subheading title.
Removed it since it wasn't really too necessary and a leftover of when I did my edits on this article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion and reception[edit]

References[edit]

Reference style is consistent and the structure of the reflist is normal. Y Notes on specific references will be noted in the sections they appear in.

External links[edit]

ELs are consistent with other similar Pokemon character articles. Y

Copyright violations[edit]

There is a strong similarity to an Aliexpress listing. I assume it's lifted from a previous revision of this article.

Stability[edit]

There has not been any disruptive editing on this article in recent history. Squirtle hasn't been in the news recently, as far as I'm aware.

Images[edit]

Images are tagged with rationales and are both fair use. Their use is appropriate in this article. The squirtle squad image has rationale but hasn't yet been tagged as such by an admin - not a concern for this review, as that maintenance category is massive and it should still be compliant.

Overall comments[edit]

I'm working on this as I go. Should give another update in a few hours. Recon rabbit 20:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Other comments[edit]