Talk:Squirtle

GA status

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)

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, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I know, but it has about three times as many refs. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

GA removal

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

Super smash bros fighters

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

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)

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

GA Review

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

@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)

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

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

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

@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. --PresN 19:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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/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)

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

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. Reconrabbit

The numbers used for reference spot checks will be based on this version of the article.

Lead

• The lead states that Squirtle can evolve into Wartortle and Blastoise, but this is not stated anywhere else in the article, only that evolution is possible and that there is a Wartortle in Pokemon Adventures.
• Squirtle has received a mostly positive reception since its debut, with a group of specific Squirtle, known as the Squirtle Squad, developing a strong popularity as a result of their appearance in the Pokémon anime. Does this mean that the Squirtle Squad became popular due to their appearance in the anime, or Squirtle as a whole became popular due to the animated characters, or something else entirely?

Design and characteristics

• "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. As it's a project wide thing I wasn't aware of I'm crossing this off
• No specific prose issues. Y

Appearances

• "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)

• The placement of the final sentence could lead to some confusion as to whether "[Squirtle] later appeared in the background of the movie Detective Pikachu" or if Turtley, Green's Pokemon, appeared in Detective Pikachu.

Promotion and reception

• Then-President Elect of Chile, Gabriel Boric Font, received a Squirtle plush as a gift from Japan after he stated he was a fan of the series. "Then-President Elect" doesn't make sense without specifying when this event happened. Maybe reword it so that his occupation is later, e.g., "Gabriel Boric Font received a Squirtle plush ... just prior to his inauguration as President of Chile."
• they had a powerful backstory and strong popularity among fans While representative of the source, this is an awkward way to state that the Squirtle Squad was well-liked. The Gamer is pretty borderline here and I don't really see how much this almost-opinion piece contributes considering we already have GamesRadar and Vice sources in the same paragraph.

References

• Reference style is consistent and the structure of the reflist is normal. Y
• This article is well cited and none of the statements that could be disputed are left uncited.

• Reference checks:
  • [1] Y
  • [6] Y
  • [8] Y
  • [9] Y CBR is a fine source for this esp. since there's another source.
  • [12] Y Also verifies Michele Knotz from #11. Recommend removing [11] as it's a self-published source (her own resume).
  • [15] N Charmander and Squirtle aren't mentioned as appearing in Pokemon Red and Blue in this source. Recommend using [1] again here since it plainly states the three starters. Fixed
  • [16] Y

  Not going to go in depth on 17 thru 29 because I can assume these just include Squirtle in a list of characters present as does 16.

  • [30] Y Primary source, but it's not a particularly controversial claim.
  • [31] N Does not state that the fatigue mechanic was removed. Claim removed
  • [32] Y A lot is attributed to this source. I personally feel like "honorary firefighters" is extrapolation.
  • [35] Y
  • [39] N Squirtle is in the promo image, but the text of this article and the linked pokemon.co.jp site [1] just state that the mascot was Pikachu. Fixed
  • [46] Y
  • [47] Y
  • [51] Y
  • [53] Y

External links

• ELs are consistent with other similar Pokemon character articles. Y

Copyright violations

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

Stability

• 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

• 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

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

@Reconrabbit how's it going with the review? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't finished checking references yet, but the "red and green/red and blue" needs to be corrected. Reconrabbit 16:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Reference check is done... Please address the points that I've marked and then we should be in the clear. Reconrabbit 23:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit added additional sources verifying information not contained in citations (Which I admittedly thought was there but I missed entirely). I will note on the Red/Green and Red/Blue case that Wikipedia has historically used Red and Blue to represent the first pair of games, with the main article maintaining that title, as well as most articles that reference the original games, which includes a number of previously passed Good Articles. The titles are used interchangeably due to the fact the differences between Green and Blue are very minimal beyond box art (Iirc literally just different sprites and appearance rates for certain Pokémon) and is essentially a localized version of the same game. It's a confusing case for titles, but it shouldn't be a problem for the purposes of this review to my knowledge. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. Anything unaddressed is personal preference on prose. Reconrabbit 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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.