Former featured article candidateRaichu is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleRaichu has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2024Good article nomineeListed
January 27, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Lightchu?[edit]

I have not heard of Lightchu, does it actually exist? 71.132.5.2 06:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, where did you read about that? Michael 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be in this article for some reason 71.131.252.182 05:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably vandalism. Michael 21:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learning moves[edit]

I'm concerned about this statement: "Although Raichu learns mostly Electric-type attacks on its own...". Is Raichu then the only exception to the rule that when stones are used to evolve Pokémon, they learn no additional moves? I think this may need to be corrected in the article. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 16:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

I noticed Raichu's Japanese name, ライチュウ, is translated as "Raichuu", yet Pichu's name, ピチュー, is "Pichū". Last time I checked, チュウ and チュー were equivalent sounds. Shouldn't 'uu' be changed to ū? Same for Pikachuu. DanPMK 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Katakana in Raichu's name spells out ラ (Ra), イ (i), チュ (chu), ウ (u). Whereas Pichu is ピ (Pi), チュ (chu), plus a vowel extender (ー). The vowel extender is translated as "ū", while Raichu's name is transliterated ending in "uu" because there are two "u"s in it's Japanese name. I hope this isn't too complicated to follow. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 00:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the kana sound, but I'm just unsure if "ウウ" and "ウー" sound different in Japanese. They seem to represent the same mora. DanPMK 02:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both "u"s in Raichu's name are pronounced seperately, it's just fast and almost unnoticed. The vowel extender in Pichu's name just lengthens the sound of the "u". -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I wonder why they chose to make Pichu's name different... Thanks for clearing it up. DanPMK 04:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you people learn this stuff? THL
Dedication, and stuff like the Katakana article. DanPMK 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wow. I'll let you guys handle translations then. Thx anyway ;) THL 06:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought that both things mean the same thing...Blueaster 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, MOS states both ウウ and ウー are to be Romanized as ū anyway.—ウルタプ 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

line of stats[edit]

i was wondering if we can put a graph on how well are the stats of the pokemon like attack ect. not sure but i thought it would be a good idea BTW i am foo12 i just did not want to sign in --71.216.166.237 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The graph violates WP:NOT. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a game guide, it's an encyclopedia. Besides, this article is supposed to be about Raichus in general, not especially on how it is on games. If we'd have specific info about EVERYTHING from anime to games, then this article would be away too long, other reason of why this can't be, it violates what wikipedia is not, like Jeske said. You're probably new to Wikipedia, you will learn, I also added some junk when I was new. Well, I hope you understand. It isn't easy when you're new, but I'm sure you'll get used to it. TheBlazikenMaster 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't that new after all. I see on your cont. that you've been since November last year. But don't worry, that doesn't mean I won't give you useful tips. Cheers. TheBlazikenMaster 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Jeske, TBM. -Jeske (v^_^v) 23:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

**** YEAH SEAKING[edit]

Aw, geez, the jerk hit here, too? What is his deal with Seaking? --Luigifan 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been indef-blocked for his edits already. -Jeske (v^_^v) 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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:Raichu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 06:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Gonna take this one for the WikiCup. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 06:31, 1 January 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. I would say that the prose was a bit bumpy prior to the GA review. This has changed. Pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section is of adequate length and summarizes text. Layout is correct. Article isn't overrun with words from the WTW list. Fiction is out-of-universe. List incorporation policy does not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. I spot no bare URLs and the reference section is in the correct place.
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). I'm not sure which sources are reliable to be included. Well referenced with reliable sources. Pass.
2c. it contains no original research. Spotchecking proves that there is good text-source integrity.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. As of this review, the highest ranked similarity is at 27%, according to Earwig.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article explains the character's creation, design, appearances, and reception, which is information adequate for a fictional character.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No fancruft. Article stays on topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Nothing too problematic. Praises and criticisms were shown in the reception section.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars have occurred recently. Development is at a steady pace.
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. All three images have a non-free fair use rationale.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images give sufficient visual context for the reader. Captions are suitable.
7. Overall assessment. Pikaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaachuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!

Quickfail?[edit]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula Just sending a ping to see if everything's alright.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still alive. Got homework to do and whatnot. Should be done soon. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 16:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • I feel that's not really needed given we've established we're talking about a species, and they as is is also used in the plural sense in that case.
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed.
  • Leaving this per previous GAN discussions. Readers unfamiliar with the series may not get they're items in the game.
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed
  • I removed it here, but left it below because one of the design specifications for Pikachu during early development was that "it evolve twice", and lacking that clarification the reader may be confused.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed. Keeping fluffier in there in some capacity because it was an exact term Sugimori used towards the design
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Changed "pointed out" to "claimed"
  • Fixed
  • Standard suggested across a few much farther back GANs, kept it going forward to avoid issues.

Creation and development[edit]

  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Reworded
  • Reworded
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Clarified

Design[edit]

  • Fixed, name mixup
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • This one I'm leaving, because it makes it clear the look was intentional instead just an observation. The article cited made a point to emphasize that to boot.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • That one I kept because it was a new official term being introduced to the reader at that point. Been used in that manner for the first usage in similar articles
  • Rewrote. Expanded book cite to cover it.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed, kept wording to make it clear Electric was a terrain trait though, as that's rather specific.

Appearances[edit]

  • It's all good, rewrote to be a bit clearer? Don't feel you need to rush this if it helps. Will say this is one of the more thorough GANs I've had.
  • Clarified.
  • Reception section has several sources mention this, as in their opinion it helped shape perception of Raichu among the fandom.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed?
  • Reworded this to be a bit better. Goh's bucks the trend of Raichu and Pikachu sparring anytime they meet in the anime, so not sure how to keep that importance there that this was an exception.
  • Fixed

Critical reception[edit]

  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed. Removed Some, I think that keeps the same tone.
  • Fixed
  • Changed to "Other articles".
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed. Change to feeling, trying to avoid repetition.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed. Fanbyte is listed under "Other reliable" on WP:VG/S, and the writer in question has written for multiple publications.
  • Fixed a bit. Wanted to keep the quote because it felt a good stinger for his paragraph.
  • I'd like to keep this, because the previous paragraph is covering Nintendo's treatment of the character, while this is regarding public perception. Also The Gamer is regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of editorial pieces; the issue with ValNet in general arises from listcles/reddit reposting content farming usually per discussion on WT:VG/S, and editorial pieces are frequently argued for and they are considered reliable for confirming facts in articles as a secondary source.
  • Fixed
  • I think at the time I found it a bit of a cute comparison but it doesn't work. Removed.
  • Fixed per above.
  • ComicBook.com has been cited in multiple publications and scholarly works, and has a longstanding editorial process.
  • See previous discussion on TheGamer.
  • Changed options to items.
  • Fixed
Fixed
  • In Press is a longstanding publisher of scholarly works. Not to be confused with Inpress, which is a british publisher of eBooks apparently. Pierre Bruno is also an author of several books and papers under several publishers.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed, but left the unkind trainers bit, as I think it helps sell the point the writer was trying to make.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Changed to form. Region here is being used in regards to regional variation.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed? Changed to "shelve the original design"
  • Fixed?

References[edit]

  • Fixed.
  • Fixed, archive added
  • AI articles in regards to Kotaku don't have an author attributed to them as pointed out by former EiC Patricia Hernandez. The sources used here should be fine and reliable.

Spotchecking[edit]

I will pick 10 references and make sure there is text-source integrity. Reference numbers are of this revision.

That should be everything. Man that was a gauntlet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I have finished your GA review. Congratulations! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.