Talk:Voltorb

Voltorb 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.
Review: December 27, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voltorb 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: "Voltorb" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Pokémon Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pokémon universe 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.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Video games: Nintendo / Characters Low‑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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-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 Low-importance).

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Cake Mania (series) (0 participants)
Omocat (4 participants)
Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals (9 participants)
SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation) (9 participants)
Stick Soldiers (2 participants)
Rick Jay Glen (4 participants; relisted)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (16 participants; relisted)
Atlus USA (15 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Biology?[edit]

Shouldn't that category be renamed? According to the article, Voltorb is basically an artificial Pokémon, originated from synthetic materials, so maybe 'Biology' isn't the ideal word to describe it. Whaddaya think? Fray Andrés de Pentarillo 02:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

Yes, I know I still haven't made an account, but my mom said she will look into it. Anyway, all of these sources are pretty much, "It's not well designed." I'm not sure that makes it any more notable than Garbodor or Vanillite. 2605:B40:1303:900:54E7:6B7A:FA98:A4 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that it defines what came after it (other object Pokemon like Garbodor or Klefki are often directly compared to it) and it's cited often as an example of some of Gen 1's shortcomings, albeit with a few pointing out reasons for such a simple design. Even the ValNet articles, while I realize they aren't everyone's cup of tea, do at least offer analysis on it, and I've got another I'd like to add once I'm certain this won't get nuked.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 05:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead says startled, but the rest of the article says jolted
1. Fixed the consistency.

Appearances

Why are specifically GS, RS, and XY mentioned, but not DP, BW, or SS?
1. Should be fixed, made the wording make it more clear it's every mainline title til Sw/Sh.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

For clarify, aside from doing a plagiarism checker on the article, I also verified that content in the article was adequately summarized without merely rehashing what was said. Links checked include [1], [2], and [3], all of which are not reproduced, but more importantly, are written in such a way that satisfies that the article is sufficiently original. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, passed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]