Talk:Raichu

line of stats

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's Jeske, TBM. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)'

**** YEAH SEAKING

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

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

Gonna take this one for the WikiCup. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:31, 1 January 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.	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?

• Y Once I fully read the article, I'll get started with the rest of the review. Spotted no major flaws. Moving on with the review.
• Y Nothing too severe regarding copyright violations and plagiarism, according to Earwig.
• Y No cleanup banners or citation needed tags.
• Y Article is stable.
• Y There have been no prior Good Article reviews.

@TrademarkedTWOrantula Just sending a ping to see if everything's alright.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Still alive. Got homework to do and whatnot. Should be done soon. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Y Nice length for lead.
• May want to use a footnote clarifying Raichu's gender if necessary (particularly at the part where it says ...they were created by...)

• 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.

• I'd suggest dropping "later" in "later finalized"

• Fixed.

• Classified as an Electric-type Pokemon - Not really a Pokémon fan here, but shouldn't the "e" in "Pokemon" have an accent mark?

• Fixed

• with a lightning bolt-shaped tail and yellow sacs on its cheek that can generate large amounts of electricity - Let's say I overdosed on coffee. I might think that the tail generates electricity and not its cheeks. (just asking a clarifying question; if it's right, you don't need to change the article at all)

• Fixed.

• Cut "item" after "Thunder Stone"

• Leaving this per previous GAN discussions. Readers unfamiliar with the series may not get they're items in the game.

• Why is Gorochu quoted?

• Fixed.

• ...Raichu was originally intended to evolve further into a form dubbed "Gorochu" → Raichu was meant to evolve to a form dubbed Gorochu.

• Fixed

• leaving Raichu to be Pikachu's sole evolution. - I'm assuming the reader knows that Pikachu's evolution stops at Raichu; this part of the sentence can be removed.

• 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.

• Cut "later" in A regional variant was added later...

• Fixed

• I don't think "fluffier" is specific enough to describe Alolan Raichu's appearance... maybe try mentioning that its tail and ears are round?

• Fixed. Keeping fluffier in there in some capacity because it was an exact term Sugimori used towards the design

• Pikachu's rival in the anime adaptation of the series - Shouldn't the Pokémon anime be linked here?

• Fixed

• I'd suggest linking "Alolan" in the infobox to Pokémon Sun and Moon#Setting.

• Fixed

• or in some games shown → or, in some games, shown

• Fixed

• critics have pointed out this coupled with the lack of support for the species from Game Freak has painted the species in a negative light and overall damaged its reputation - Something shows me this isn't NPOV... can't quite place my finger on it.

• Changed "pointed out" to "claimed"

• Nishida is linked twice in the infobox. For readability, I'd suggest unlinking the second time a name pops up.

• Fixed

• Why are "Japanese" and "English" linked?

• Standard suggested across a few much farther back GANs, kept it going forward to avoid issues.

Creation and development

• with the release of the Pokémon Red and Blue video games - I think everyone knows that Pokémon is a video game. Cut "the" and "video games".

• Fixed

• Might want to link "experience" to experience point

• Fixed

• Cut "of the games" after "ultimate goal"

• Fixed

• Cut "the entries in"

• Fixed

• Remove comma between "designs" and "and"

• Fixed

• I feel like "such as" should be changed to "including"

• Fixed

• she was given strictly gameplay guidelines to work with → ...she was given specific guidelines to work with,

• Fixed

• While Pikachu evolves into Raichu through use of the game's "Thunder Stone" item, an evolution for Raichu was planned dubbed Gorochu. - I don't get how this is a contrast.

• Reworded

• While Nishida developed the sprites, a single color identity was chosen in order to work within the Super Game Boy's hardware limitations. - Same thing here.

• Reworded

• You could probably link "cartridge" to ROM cartridge

• Fixed

• You could link "sprites" to Sprite (computer graphics)

• Fixed

• Cut "afterwards"

• Fixed

• who, towards the end of development, drew...

• Fixed

• By "drew", do you mean on paper or in the game as pixel art? - Stupid question to ask, but the sentence needs clarifying.

• Clarified

Design

• Who's Nishitani (in the Alolan Raichu caption)?

• Fixed, name mixup

• I tried to be bold and did this. Not sure if you want both the feet and inches. Decided to change it back.
• Why is "rai" in quotes, but "chu" italicized?

• Fixed

• Cut "rather"

• Fixed

• Remove comma between "feet" and "and"

• Fixed

• Orange in color with a white belly, their paws are brown, while the soles of their feet are tan colored. → With orange skin, Raichu has a white belly, brown paws, and tan-colored soles on their feet.

• Fixed

• "outsides" → outside and "insides" → "inside"

• Fixed

• Might be redundant to say "on their face" right after yellow cheek sacs.

• Fixed

• Pretty sure most people know lightning is associated with electricity

• 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.

• Nishida noted in an interview that she was obsessed with the creatures at the time due to their "comical movement", - "Noted" is only used for facts; in this sentence, it's being used to describe Nishida's opinions.

• Fixed

• "Squirrel" could be linked

• Fixed

• Sugimori attributed their change to mice to series creator Satoshi Tajiri as he was developing the setting. → Sugimori credited the change to mice to Pokémon creator Satoshi Tajiri when he was developing the setting.

• Fixed

• Why is "Alolan form" quoted?

• 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

• When developing sequel titles Pokémon Sun and Moon, "Alolan form" Pokémon were added, variants of existing Pokémon meant to be tied thematically to the game's region - Feel like this should be cited. Also, there's an awkward comma splice between "added" and "variants"; I would suggest splitting the sentences up.

• Rewrote. Expanded book cite to cover it.

• Add a comma between "game" and "Raichu's"

• Fixed

• as they felt the species was popular - What do you mean by "popular"?

• Fixed.

• appearance that surprised Sugimori - Could use a pronoun here

• Fixed

• as to "play up that cuteness" (also the period goes outside of the quote because it isn't a full sentence)

• Fixed

• In addition to gaining a secondary typing of "Psychic" → With Psychic as its secondary type, it has an ability called Surge Surfer to speed through electric terrain. - Also unquote "Psychic", "Surge Surfer", and "Electric".

• Fixed, kept wording to make it clear Electric was a terrain trait though, as that's rather specific.

Appearances

• they have appeared in most Pokémon titles since including every major game - What? Do you mean that they're in every major game? Look, it's 10:00 PM and my mind's everywhere.

• 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.

• the most notable example of which is owned by Pokémon Gym Leader Lt. Surge - He owns the game????

• Clarified.

• Typically, players must use a Thunder Stone item on a Pikachu to evolve it into Raichu. However, the Pikachu obtained at the start of Pokémon Yellow and Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu cannot evolve, and another Pikachu must be obtained instead. - Not sure why this is important (leaning towards WP:GAMEGUIDE)

• Reception section has several sources mention this, as in their opinion it helped shape perception of Raichu among the fandom.

• as a part of promotions → as promotional material

• Fixed

• "related anime" and "manga" should be linked in the body

• Fixed

• defeating it with its superior speed - Did Pikachu or Raichu win?

• Fixed?

• A notable exception to this trend is the Raichu owned by the character Goh, whose female Raichu is quite fond of Pikachu. → In one (episode/book/whatever), Goh's female Raichu is fond of Pikachu.

• 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.

• the latter of which → ...the last of which

• Fixed

Critical reception

• Shouldn't this section be called "Reception"?
  • Across all the character articles I've written it's been pushed to be "Critical reception", unless merged with something else (i.e. "Promotion and reception"). I can't remember exactly which article that started with but I know I had multiple editors encourage that in reviews.
• Pikachu should be linked in the photo caption

• Fixed

• I wouldn't say harsh

• Fixed

• visible status → popularity

• Fixed

• Some later articles, - I would say "more recent", but I think that's in the WTW list.

• Fixed. Removed Some, I think that keeps the same tone.

• Alex Olney agreed, describing it as "hugely underrated" and rating it higher than Pikachu → Alex Olney agreed that Raichu is "hugely underrated", ranking it higher than Pikachu.

• Fixed

• More detailed articles also praised the species. - What do you mean by "detailed"?

• Changed to "Other articles".

• Kenneth Shephard in an article for Kotaku → Kenneth Shephard of Kotaku

• Fixed

• "Raichu has been a punching bag for the company over the years, and if they’re not making a mockery of him, they’re ignoring or changing him entirely" - Oof. Could be paraphrased. How about: ...stating that they would either use Raichu as a "punching bag" or ending up not using them at all.

• Fixed

• in part on → due to

• Fixed

• noting that while the episode by itself was good - "noting" is being used as an opinion

• Fixed. Change to feeling, trying to avoid repetition.

• This was compounded further in the games → Raichu's negative reception compounded in the Pokémon video games; while...

• Fixed

• they would be at a disadvantage to evolve Pikachu → ...that evolving Pikachu would be a disadvantage...

• Fixed

• or, in some titles, prevent the species from evolving at all.

• Fixed

• he further noted that - "Noted" is being used to show an opinion. Also, is Fanbyte reliable?

• Fixed. Fanbyte is listed under "Other reliable" on WP:VG/S, and the writer in question has written for multiple publications.

• In an article for Fanbyte, he further noted that the treatment of Raichu contrasted against the treatment of other similar final evolution Pokémon such as Charizard or Blastoise, and added "it feels like Raichu can't get out from under its little brother's shadow, even as he towers over him." → In an article for Fanbyte, he further explained that Raichu's final evolution, compared to other Pokémon such as Charizard or Blastoise, felt too mild. (of course you can keep part of the quote in; saying "felt too mild" might be OR)

• Fixed a bit. Wanted to keep the quote because it felt a good stinger for his paragraph.

• "people worship the throne that Pikachu built, ignoring anything Raichu had to offer" - Not sure about this quote; it's basically saying the same idea that Raichu was criticized because Pikachu is popular. Perhaps it could be merged? Also, is The Gamer a reliable source?

• 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.

• Cut "further" in "further argued"

• Fixed

• likening people's preference to the latter to preferring dial up internet - What? Is this a comparison?

• I think at the time I found it a bit of a cute comparison but it doesn't work. Removed.

• Remove comma between "dial up internet" and "and"

• Fixed per above.

• What makes ComicBook.com reliable?

• ComicBook.com has been cited in multiple publications and scholarly works, and has a longstanding editorial process.

• What makes ScreenRant reliable?

• See previous discussion on TheGamer.

• able to utilize a wider array of options - What options?

• Changed options to items.

• with [...] the right amount of rotundness to contrast with its sleek legs and iconic tail - ... franchise's "best designs", highlighting Raichu's "sleek" legs and "iconic" tail.

• Fixed

• However in a later article, she emphasized that in her eyes the franchise had seemingly abandoned the species, stating "Raichu seems cursed to never be allowed to stand on its own from Pikachu." → However, in a 2022 article, she emphasized that the franchise abandoned the species. - I also feel like you could cut the quote.

Fixed

• La Culture de l'Enfance à l'Heure de la Mondialisation - Does the book come from a reliable publisher?

• 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.

• between the two → ...between them...

• Fixed

• Ash's own

• Fixed

• Remove comma between "Raichu" and "and"

• Fixed

• The theme was something... (I'd recommend splitting the sentence)

• Fixed

• acting as an example of addressing "identity and autonomy that, purposeful or not, speak to a queer experience [...] affirming self-identity and self-expression" → ...acting as an example of self-expression and -identity.

• Fixed

• On the subject of characterization

• Fixed

• "mean and unappealing - an ill-natured Pokémon used by unkind Trainers" → "an ill-natured Pokémon"

• Fixed, but left the unkind trainers bit, as I think it helps sell the point the writer was trying to make.

• Remove comma between "pancakes" and "and"

• Fixed

• "Meme" could be linked

• Fixed

• stating that "This adorable pancake puff is one of the cutest alternate forms in the entire Pokémon series" → ...ranking Alolan Raichu as "one of the cutest alternate forms" across the Pokémon series.

• Fixed

• regardless of region - ...game region? could change "region" to beliefs?

• Changed to form. Region here is being used in regards to regional variation.

• Shepard,on the other hand, voiced disdain.

• Fixed

• While the praised the fact Raichu - Is the first "the" supposed to be "he"?

• Fixed

• Try a better word for "phase"

• Fixed? Changed to "shelve the original design"

• "as a kind of canvas it can use to pitch some new idea" → "as a kind of canvas"

• Fixed?

References

• Reference 6 (Casey's Twitter post): The two heart emojis at the end could be removed. They don't add anything to the tweet's message.

• Fixed.

• Reference 11 (IGN Pokemon Red guide): Can't seem to access it

• Fixed, archive added

• What makes Digital Spy reliable?

• Several discussions on WP:VG/S, they're currently owned by Hearst Magazines UK.

• According to WP:VG/S: Any Kotaku article past 2022 may be considered situational because they use AI to write their articles. You could remove this source if you want to.

• 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

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

• 1
  • Y Infobox
  • Y while Raichu was originally planned to evolve into a Pokémon dubbed Gorochu. However, the latter was cut due to cartridge space concerns, leaving Raichu to be Pikachu's sole evolution.
  • Y Nishida developed the sprites - I'm assuming Nishida "punching dots" is considered making pixel art.
  • Y Two brown stripes ... designing the setting - I've removed some parts because I couldn't spot the text.
• 9
  • Y using a single color identity chosen in order to work within the Super Game Boy's hardware limitations.
• 11 + 12
  • Y Raichu's name comes from the Japanese kanji "rai", meaning thunder, followed by "chū", which is the Japanese onomatopoeia for a mouse's squeak.
  • "chu" part proven by ref #12 Can't seem to access #12
    • 12's archive is working, have you tried scrolling down?
      • Y Wow. I did not see that.
        • It's all good, sorry if that came across passive aggressive, didn't mean it to.
• 16
  • Y However, the Pikachu obtained at the start of Pokémon Yellow and Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu cannot evolve, and another Pikachu must be obtained instead. - I see details about Lt. Surge but nothing about Pikachu not evolving.
    • Fixed with an additional source.
  • Y Kenneth Shephard ... would be a disadvantage
  • Y Shephard, on the other hand ... ideas instead
• 21
  • Y Another Raichu appears in the short Pikachu's Vacation, goading Pikachu into fighting him and racing across the island they are on.
  • Y However, in a 2022 article, she emphasized that the franchise abandoned the species.
  • Y On characterization, Fakhoori felt the anime's repeated portrayal of Raichu as "an ill-natured Pokémon used by unkind Trainers" significantly damaged how the species was viewed by the public, especially in light of Pikachu being emphasized as "reasonable and heroic" when the two come into conflict.
• 25
  • Later articles, ... denied access to Raichu
    • Y 23:48 in the vid, corrected the wording.
• 26
  • Y "it feels like Raichu can't get out from under its little brother's shadow, even as he towers over him."
• 27
  • Y Isaiah McCall of The Gamer held similar sentiments, stating "people worship the throne that Pikachu built, ignoring anything Raichu had to offer", and expressing his confusion at the reaction. He argued that Raichu was simply a stronger counterpart to Pikachu, and felt Raichu would have been far more popular if it evolved from any other Pokémon.
• 31
  • Y Meanwhile, journalist Nicole Hill in an interview with Kotaku felt Pikachu's refusal to evolve and why resonated well with the LGBTQ community, acting as an example of self-expression and -identity.

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

@Kung Fu Man: I have finished your GA review. Congratulations! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Moved from WP:ERRORS

The following has been moved from ERRORS, where in was inappropriately placed. Courtesy ping to Andrew Davidson so he can continue the discussion here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There are several issues with this:

1. Much of the wording of this lead/blurb is a word-for-word copy of the equivalent lead of Pikachu. Presumably it has been written in a cookie-cutter fashion, but I'm not seeing any attribution of an original text and so it may violate the WP:FACRITERIA that it be free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.

2. Some of the statements are written in an in-universe style contrary to MOS:INUNIVERSE, e.g. Raichu is a large orange mouse with a tail.... It is actually a virtual game component but words such as "fictional" do not appear to make this clear. Instead we have words like "species" and "evolve" which might confuse an unfamiliar reader to think this might be a real creature.

3. The topic seems to reverse the decision that we wouldn't have a separate article for every Pokemon – see WP:POKETEST and related coverage for some history. Pikachu might be notable as the lead character but this one is literally just another variation of the same thing.

4. The phrase While early reactions from media outlets regarded it negatively is ungrammatical as the subject doesn't match the verb. Either the early reactions were negative or the media outlets regarded it negatively.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC) SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

i'll admit that i don't actually get #2. there's really no need to explicitly describe it as fictional when it's already stated that it's from a media franchise and had a designer, or to be pedantic by saying what effectively amounts to "it's actually just pixels on a screen". i think readers would get that it's not actually a real animal by the words "pokémon media franchise"

i also don't see the problem with #4, since regarding stuff negatively is a thing that can be done (in fact, watch me do it!! i don't really like cucumbers), time is a thing that exists, and there's no problem with saying that that's what reactions were, but that's besides the point consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The guidance explains that An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article. The article is full of this confusion between fact and fiction. For example, Standing 2 ft 7 in (79 cm) tall, Raichu is significantly taller than Pikachu.... There no context to clarify whether this height is fictional or refers to the size of a prop or rendering or what. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be frank, a lot of this is bitching for the sake of it, and a lot of it falls into clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That might be crass, but there's been a longstanding discussion to include a section in each Pokemon article explaining the in-universe aspects for the reader. That's not only by consensus, but been contributed to by several editors on WT:VGCHAR as seen in its archives. Additionally the wording is appropriate as there is a long-standing consensus that character implies fictional character; see discussions in WT:VG regarding the redundancy of putting "fictional characters" in article and the consensus reached as thus.

Lastly, the Pokemon Test has not held weight in quite some time, nor was it ever policy. In fact there's been several discussions to either remove it or further downgrade it, resulting in a notification at the top that it is merely an essay and not meant to impact policy or what articles wikipedia can or cannot have whatsoever.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

this would mean slapping the word "fictional" in sentences no less than 4 times, which... nah, any ol' reader could get within non-fictional seconds, even if they were fictionally lucky enough to not know what a pikachu is or that there's more fictional pokeymans. i guess there's also the issue of mos:inuniverse not being a suicide pact, since it doesn't really need to be stated that something that is fictional (which i can't see a video game character created to fill a role and not explicitly filling the shoes of a real life entity being seen as not) has traits that are also necessarily fictional, and having to tie the fictional height of a fictional species to just one not-necessarily-fictional object would ironically make things more confusing

also, the article explicitly describes pokémon as fictional, so i don't even think this issue can hold that water consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

maybe in a slightly different topic, #1 isn't much of an issue, since pokémon articles do still have to describe the pokémon, using entirely different wordings wouldn't make sense on both a mos and practical perspective, and attribution in this case just boils down to wikipedia's servers not going boom or no admin going on a disruptive revdel streak

similarly for #3, even if the pokémon test wasn't kind of irrelevant now... raichu passes it, so what's the problem? that issues with multiple articles related to pokémon were had almost 10 years ago? there are definitely better places to say this is an issue that exists, and even then, those only haven't been worked on yet consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Okay, you invoke the Pokemon Test, but for what? Are you arguing that this fails to be a notable Pokemon species? If so, why? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Nintendo Life rating

The following is in the Critical reception section of the article:

"A later retrospective of Pokémon from Red and Blue by Nintendo Life's spoke more favorably of the species, with Jon Cartwright describing them as a "step up" from Pikachu. Other staff of the website agreed, such as Alex Olney who called [Raichu] "hugely underrated" and ranking it higher than Pikachu, while Zion Grassl felt it was unfair to players of Pokémon Yellow to be denied access to Raichu without losing a core feature of the game."

First, it should be noted that their pokemon rankings were not laid out with specific criteria but it's clear from watching the video that they were skewed heavily toward their designs with secondary importance given to their move set, later video game appearances (such as Pokemon Stadium), and anime appearances. The portion that caught my attention was, "Grassl felt it was unfair to players of Pokémon Yellow to be denied access to Raichu without losing a core feature of the game," since I couldn't figure out what core feature they were referring to. I watched the video and produced this transcript (timestamp 23:30 or so):

Olney: "Pikachu is the pokemon. But what's better than the pokemon? Its evolution, Raichu. I'm gonna have to put it in S[-tier]. I love Raichu. I think it's hugely underrated, hugely underrated."

Grassl: "It's almost unfair too, that if you're playing Pokemon Yellow, that if you want to evolve into a cooler pokemon like Raichu, you just lose the trailing pokemon behind you too. You're punished."

Olney: "No, he throws away the thunder stone! He like bats it away, I think."

Grassl: "Oh, does he do that?!"

Cartwright: "Yeah, he refuses to evolve."

Grassl: "No way!"

Olney: "Cheeky old so-and-so!"

Grassl: "Wow!"

So the "core feature" Grassl was referring to was having Pikachu follow you around and being able to interact with it. He was quickly corrected and realized his error. I'm not saying the article needs to be changed, but I personally found it confusing that this misconception made it into the article presented (albeit ambiguously) as fact.--~2025-38731-89 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe the misunderstanding was due to the fact that you can trade Pikachu and evolve it into Raichu, which, if traded back, would mean that you lose the feature. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)