Talk:Weezing/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 06:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 07:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I'll review this this weekend 😁 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Courtesy ping - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I am very sorry for my lateness – I have had some personal issues. Well done on this article, it is very good and you clearly worked hard on it! Here is my review:

Conception and development:

1. Can you please link "Pokémon Red and Green" if it has a link?

   It just redirects to Red, Blue, and Yellow, so we've elected to not include it in the copypasta

2. Is it possibly to link or briefly explain what "elemental types" are?

   Linked

3. "along with the others" - Who are the others?

   Clarified that it is other Pokemon species

4. "These names derived from the high levels of air pollution in these areas" - I am a bit confused - could you please clarify?

   Clarified

5. Could you please link or briefly explain what "Poison-type Pokémon" and "Fairy type" for readers unfamiliar with the subject?

   I'm a little reticent to do so; I worry about being overly technical. Can the elemental types link suffice?

6. Does the ability "Levitate" mean it can levitate? If so, could you please clarify it?

   Its ability to hover is mentioned earlier

7. "a new form called a Galarian form was introduced." - Could you please clarify if this is related to Weezing?

   Clarified

8. "These new elements were designed to make it fit into a United Kingdom-based environment" - Could you briefly expand this? How did this help it fit in a UK environment?

   I can't really do that without running afoul of synthesis, because the designers only really state the connection, but don't elaborate further.

Appearances:

1. Can you please clarify what "in the wild" means?

   Not sure how to clarify this further; it just means that it's found in the wild and isn't owned by another trainer.

2. Regarding the plot in this section, it should be in present tense per MOS:PLOT

   Fixed

3. Could you please give a few examples of the food?

   There's only one food type, but I felt it weird to say "pancakes".

Critical reception:

1. What is a "regional Pokémon"?

   I clarified this in the Galarian Weezing portion of "conception and development"

2. "humorous effect by fans" - Could you please give a couple of examples if possible?

   Added an example

3. There are a lot of "X writer XYZ..." - Could some of these be changed (E.g. "x from xyz wrote...")?

   Fixed

4. "provided commentary on climate change" - Could you please give an example and/or explain?

   I believe there is an example? "particularly via the smokestacks in the United Kingdom during the Industrial Revolution, stating that the polluting factories are what caused it to change its form" and "long-lasting consequences for past events"

5. "it had not aged as well" - Why is that?

   Doesn't really elaborate

6. Is there any information on Weezing's role in the television series?

   Unfortunately no

Other:

1. I archived some of the sources through Iabot - can you please archive the rest?

   Archive.org is being pretty temperamental

2. Can you please link the websites etc in the sources? I have done a couple

   Done

3. In the lead it says "known in Japan as Matadogas" - Can you please put this in the prose and source it? Otherwise it could be considered OR

   I believe that names in other languages are generally left uncited; in other GAs I've done, I've never cited it, and I think the vast majority of articles don't cite it or put it on prose outside of the lead. I would suggest bringing it up at WT:VG/VGC if you think that should be changed (as I am not necessarily in disagreement), but I'd like there to be a discussion over this outside of the realm of the GA review

4. Earwig shows no copyright violations
5. Article is stable and appears neutral
6. The sourcing looks good but Source #12 is considered Generally unreliable but allowed to be used in certain contexts, so could you please explain why it is okay here? I am sure it is fine, I just want to double check

   Per WP:VG/RS, Polygon is still usable generally, with the only caveat being to be cautious of its use. Further, the issue of reliability with this source is articles posted as of May 2025, thus this does not apply. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay that is great, thank you!! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Once these are addressed I will do a source spotcheck. Please let me know if you have any questions at all or need assistance! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Responded - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your changes. I have spotchecked Sources #9, #13, #26 and #31. I am passing this, well done :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2026 (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.