I've listed this article for peer review to try and refine it for a Featured Article candidacy. In particular, aiming for ease of understanding with the information presented for a reader that may not be familiar with Pokemon as a franchise, and why this character is worth analysis for encyclopedic discussion in light of said franchise's handling of it. Thanks, Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maplestrip's comments
I may add more comments next week, but here's some notes: ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would imagine that Pikachu should be mentioned in the first paragraph, at least much moreso than the Raichu voiceactors, which are a much more niche aspect of the character. I understand that the paragraph balance is hard to maintain if you want to explain evolution, but Raichu being the second form of Pikachu is the main reason we have an article on it.
Done.
I like your solution!
Often portrayed as Pikachu's rival in the anime adaptation of the series, or in some games, shown as a form Pikachu refuses to evolve into, ... – This sentence feels mangled.
Tweaked.
A big problem for an article like this: articles from Screen Rant as well as Comic Book Resources post 2016 are probably not going to pass in FAC. This is exactly the type of source that describes the Lt. Surge anime episode in detail, and I very much believe it should be there in this form. I don't know what the solution to this is, but I would at least remove Screen Rant from the reception section.
Removed CBR with a magazine reference, but I'll argue the ScreenRant articles are viable as their author has a history in the industry on other websites, and is a big part of the reception section. While I understand the disdain for Valnet, most of that does not apply amongst editors towards editorial pieces, let alone multiple editorials by the same author which should be taken into consideration. Do you think that should suffice?
Fakhoori does seem reasonably experienced, having been an editor on RPGNet for the past three years. I expect FAC reviewers might balk, but it looks appropriate. I don't have access to the book/magazine addtions, so no comment there, but it looks better.
This is gonna mangle the citation order, but "Standing 2 ft 7 in (79 cm) tall" is related to "Raichu is a small bipedal rodent with long ears ...", while "Raichu's name comes from the Japanese kanji ..." should probably be an independent sentence.
Fixed. Put name breakdown at the end of the paragraph.
Very clean!
I'm not sure if the 1999 "Pok¿Monday" post is an appropriate source for us; not because it was messed up in time, but because it reads as a blog post, travelogue, contest announcement, and personal hobby post. It's a weird thing...
Replaced with Book ref citing the same info.
Comments from Panini!
Sorry to keep you waiting! Comments on the way. I'll be claiming WikiCup points for this. Panini!•🥪 18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conception and development
So, do Pokemon (I'm not adding the accent, too much work) carry over with every game? Like, do they make a cast of Pokemon for one game and then get rid of them and make new ones for the next, or do they just add on with each game and they have a billion Pokemon in the most recent one?
I ask for the first line: "Raichu is a fictional species of Pokémon created for the Pokémon franchise". If it's the first case, I would say "specifically for Pokemon Red and Blue.
Some Pokemon are absent from some recent games, but this is not the case for Raichu.
Raich appears in all subsequent games, and this is explained in the appearances section. Even if they aren't in game to game, they're still treated as part of the franchise and utilized across the various media. I feel that doesn't particularly need to be explained as being designed for a franchise generally goes with the assumption of use across it unless otherwise noted.
Is "Trainer" a proper noun in these games? That's stupid.
It is.
You can cut "creatures called" because you specify what Pokemon are in the beginning on the paragraph
Fixed
Woah woah woah wait, they need special stones to evolve? I thought it just happens.
Some Pokemon evolve by level up, trading, or through the use of items. There's even a Pokemon that evolves while the 3DS is upside down.
If these Thunder Stone, Grass Stone, Infinity Stone, Kidney Stone things are necessary to evolve them I would specify this in the paragraph above where you mention evolutions. It's an evolved Pikachu, so understanding Pokemon evolution I feel is a necessary topic to dive into.
Expanded the evolution mention in the first paragraph to acknowledge exposure to specific items, without going too specific so it can be explained better in the next paragraph.
Can you detail what Gorochu was gonna be like any further?
While we have some limited information on Gorochu's design, explaining it doesn't add anything to the understanding of Raichu's design or concept.
Pardon for butting in, but this interview may give some more information on Gorochu, and it suggests the evolution was omitted due to "game balance." I do personally think Gorochu is relevant in this article, though there's not much and this source might conflict with what we got. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's more a case that it doesn't give insight into Raichu's design to know what Gorochu was intended to be, at least with some synthesis and assumptions and that's never pretty. Between Pikachu and Raichu you can draw a correlation between some elements, such as the stripes from Pikachu added to give the player "something to look at" carried over to Raichu (a detail removed during the GAN mind you because the interview didn't say Raichu in that case, just Pikachu). It's hard to know what parts of Gorochu's design influenced Raichu's, if any.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"With orange skin, Raichu has a white belly, brown paws, and tan-colored soles on their feet. Their bifurcated ears are brown on the outside and yellow on the inside, and they have yellow cheek sacs." This can all be alt text to the image; I don't see how this is necessary information to write out. (You will need alt text on your images if you go back to FAC by the way, Nikkimaria will bring it up).
Per previous GANs, reviewers have asked for some description of a character's appearance in the body. In this particular case it also helps illustrate the difference between the regular and "Alolan" form.
"Nishida stated in an interview that she was obsessed with the creatures at the time due to their "comical" movement..." I would suggest replacing "the creatures" with "squirrels" here; I was a little tripped upon whether you were referring to squirrels or rats
Wait, Rattata is just a freaking rat? There's nothing special about it? No fantastical design or magic powers? That's dumb. Are the early stages of the Pokemon games just filled with Rattatas because they're saving the better Pokemon for later? That would just give players bad first impressions. What about merchandise? You know those little plastic grab bags that contain one of, like, 12 tiny plastic figurines? What if there's a Pokemon one, and there's the chance of getting either a cool massive dragon, or a freaking rat? Of course the rat's gonna be more common because they have to make the cooler ones rare. Why would I risk it? I'd spend 500 dollars on grab bags to get 50 bags, and 32 of them are RATS?!
Yes, in the franchise's lore, Ratatta's are regarded as a type of rat Pokemon.
"Sugimori credited the change to mice to Pokémon creator Satoshi Tajiri when he was designing the setting." Wait, so it is a rat? At least at some point it was changed to be. How exactly did he change it from a squirrel to a rat? They're pretty similar, so I'd like to know what exact changes he made in this jump.
This one's a bit hard...but there's really not much more than that. Like Pikachu and Raichu are regarded as "Electric Mice" but there's no depth to that statement or real weight for them being a type of mouse or a type of squirrel other than the implication of the terminology. The statement is even one more in passing.
"When developing sequel titles Pokémon Sun and Moon, several "Alolan form" Pokémon were added." What's the difference?
Tried rewording this to be clearer that they're variants of existing pokemon.
"...who based the design off a bread motif..." This... yeah, you lost me here. What does this mean? Is bread a part of Pokemon lore?
Added "visually" in there. Not really sure how I can make this clearer.
Do you know the rules of when and when not to add quotations around video game terms and proper nouns? Because I don't. But I feel it's necessary to get this right for consistency if you aren't certain about it.
For example, what warrants quotations around "Thunder Stone" but not Surge Surfer?
Fixed.
This one isn't necessarily something you can fix. Looking around at other video game character articles, the way the information about the character is organized is in my opinion pretty wacky. As in, something like an "overview" about just the character itself from a fictional stance. The appearance sections kind of do this but only focus on their role in the game. I think these articles need to have one place where all of the information who they are, and what purpose they serve in general, is covered.
Articles like these chop it all up and disperse it among the article by calling on it only when it's relevant. For example, you talk about its species, but only to describe developer insight about its change. It's fine as is, but I think it would be better to go over this rat thing and what it can do all in one place; then you can dive into the story behind the why's, now that the reader has a solid understanding about what it is they're reading about. But, there's gotta be a reason why all video game character articles do it like this, and this is of course far from my turf. I'm not in a place of experience to comment on this. However, I really do like how Rhain does this with articles like Joel and John Marston, so I guess it's not tradition and I'm just looking at the wrong articles.
The information in the article is organized to establish the fundamentals of the franchise around the subject related to comprehending it, then illustrate its appearance, the way it came about, and same for any variations and key elements related to them. Then it flows into the appearances section which says how the character was used (and relies on the previous information establishing key terms, for example without establishing Trainers it's going to be confusing why they were fighting to begin with.) And the reception discusses reactions to the design and appearances. So there is a clear method to the madness meant to walk the reader through the subject if they aren't familiar with it.
Appearances
"First appearing alongside Lt. Surge, Raichu quickly overpowers Pikachu, leaving Ash to consider evolving it." I'm surprised he considered this rather than considering putting him down and picking a better Pokemon. Clearly they're too sentimental to consider what's best for results.
I mean that's in the reception.
Is Raichu not in Super Smash Bros. at all? That's free coverage.
All the Pokemon are in Smash Bros. but it doesn't really add anything to know that for most of them. The vast majority just show up as an item summon and move on.
Only a few handfuls of Pokémon are included as supporting characters in each Smash Bros. game, and Raichu was completely absent until Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, where Alolan Raichu was included as such a supporting character. Only RS I can quickly find documenting this inclusion is this one. This is more significant than a "trophy", but less significant than a playable character. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Critical reception
"Early reactions to the species were negative due to Pikachu's popularity as the series mascot" Is Pikachu officially their mascot? I thought that happened on accident.
I believe that was the case, but reliable sourcing identifies it as the mascot, whether or not it was a happy accident.
According to the reception, and Tajiri's own statements, Pikachu is the series mascot just not created *as* the Mascot. In fact according to an interview with Time, it wasn't his choice and came about due to the anime needing the franchise to have a central face. Adding that though would be a bit undue weight and better discussed in Pikachu's own article.
I think my biggest issue with this first paragraph is the lack of "why". Why exactly was it considered a step-up from Pikachu? Why was it easily forgettable? Why is it "hugely underrated"? These are all statements that don't really stand on their own. Is it because of its cuteness, or lack thereof? Is it for a fear that it will replace Picachu? (<- My ability to spell Pikachu is degrading as this goes on)
These are being established as people's thoughts on the character, which is the backbone of reception. Trying to go into more depth would risk some OR on my part, as the "why" for their reasoning is just not outright stated in those sources. They're the smaller thoughts leading up to the bigger ones.
"Raichu's negative reception compounded in the Pokémon video games; while Pikachu would be given items or new forms available to it to improve its effectiveness, these were omitted from Raichu, giving players the underlying message that evolving Pikachu would be a disadvantage" Nothing wrong here, this makes perfect sense to me. If the Pokemon get better as the game goes on of course the level one Pichaku is gonna need a boost for balancing sake.
...I don't understand what's wrong here.
Does Kenneth Shephard have nothing better to write about?
I mean he writes Pokemon articles for Kotaku and looking at his twitter...probably not.
"it feels like Raichu can't get out from under its little brother's shadow, even as he towers over him." This is interesting. I think you should cover in Conception and development the comparison between Raichu and Picklechu. Like, size comparisons and strength differences, especially because it's specified in this paragraph that Poncho has access to boosts that Raichu does not.
Well it's established evolved form = stronger, so I don't want to go hard there. Added the height difference to the design paragraph.
"smaller, and let's be real, cuter" - Although funny and I totally would do this as well, the "let's be real" pulls away from the encyclopedic credibility. I would paraphrase here.
Fixed
Did you get in any trouble at all at FAC about using ScreenRant? I didn't look.
Yeah, ScreenRant seems to stand out. But it's vital for one design bit, and the author of both of the articles has written for other reliable publications. ScreenRant's issue tends to be more churnalism or relying on "reddit" reporting, neither problem with applies here to the sources used.
"...which drew direct comparisons between them to the Biblical story of David and Goliath" Give me a break, they're rats. We can stomp on them and they would die. If anything, are we, as Pokemon Trainers, not the God in this scenario? There's a lot to analyze here when it comes to mercy for lesser beings or the theory of evolution; now that should be the subject of scholarly discussion.
Reworded this to be less pretentious on my part. The comparison is pretty much the typical "little guy vs impossible giant" aspect of the story.
Do Pokemon die?
I mean they do, but this is probably better for Lavender Town than Raichu.
Should there be a dash next to "-identity"?
Rewrote as self-identity
"Raichu is always shaped like a friend." I think there's a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue in that, since this whole section was about the rivalry between Raichu and Party Rock. Is there more discussion about the friendliness of Raichu?
Tweaked this...it is an odd bit, but it's more trying to give her thoughts on the design. Is it better now?
I did not look at sources, but I can't do that right now. All this Pisces made my head hurt. Panini!•🥪 20:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a short note, I found all your comments on this article extremely enjoyable, Panini! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]