# Talk:Pokémon Fossil Museum

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon Fossil Museum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) 18:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin:
Hello again! 


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.


### Lead
-Sources do not need to be cited in the lead so long as the text is verified and sourced in the article body per WP:MOSLEADCITE. 


### Overview
-Looks good


### History
-I found this source while searching, which may be useful for expanding some content here. https://www.nhk.or.jp/morioka/lreport/article/002/89/
This is not a requirement of the criteria, just thought it'd be helpful :) .


### Attendance and reception
-What is the importance Momotsuki of visiting? She is a well known person, but I'm not sure the mention of her visiting is necessarily important to understanding the subject. 
-Would it be possible to beef up the commentary section with the other articles used in the article? 


### Dates at museums
-Looks good


### Overall
-Overall minor issues. Address the above and I'll hit up the spotcheck. 


### Spotcheck
-To be added 
Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin pinging just to double check the status of this review.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I removed the info about Momotsuki but kept the accompanying citation, moving it to a Further reading section. I also expanded the Attendance and reception section the best I could with some additional sources, along with other tweaks. Also, for the sake of accuracy, I think it might be prudent if an editor fluent in Japanese and English could look over and compare the English-language content in the article to the Japanese-language sources. —Matthew  / (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@MatthewHoobin Apologies about the late reply. Just one last thing to double check: have you addressed the comments brought up below? While not mine, I do agree that a few of those points should at least be looked at.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: I did remove some content from the History section per the comments about redundancy. Not sure that the section for museum dates needs to be denoted as a dynamic list, at least not at this point in time; the exhibition has been at 11 museums over the course of the past four years, and the locations and dates are currently able to listed comfortably in this article without the list being unmanageably long. —Matthew  / (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@MatthewHoobin sounds good. Spotcheck:
Selected five random sources: 16, 14, 17, 12, 20.
I was unable to check Citation 17 as the link failed to work, and there is no archive link. Rest of them check out. Ping me when this source issue is resolved.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Source issue with citation 17 has been fixed! —Matthew  / (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@MatthewHoobin should be good to go. Happy to pass! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot): Note: I am commenting only as per WP:GACR6 (#2) "Verifiable with no original research" and notes #2. I do not read or write the language so this places me at a disadvantage or handicap if you will concerning sources. There is a near certainty the values of the sources will be looked at.
Opinion: I read the article and agree with 1-6 especially the "Overall minor issues" rating. But noticed some issues that could use attention.Redundancy: I can only see one thing needed for sure. The last sentence of the "History" section states "The exhibit is on display at the Hofu Science Museum "Solar" in Yamaguchi Prefecture from 9 November 2024 to 24 February 2025." 1)- Everything from February 29th and back (including early morning of the 30th (and my comments now) is history, the rest is not  --yet. 2)- This is redundant content as it is listed in the "Dates at museums" section. Double listing program dates could be seen as promotional.
Sourcing: I will have to leave sourcing to someone fluent in the language. See: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pokémon/archive2.A plus is the "What links here" and the number of links. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section a main goal of Wikipedia is to help readers find related information and understand the topic of an article. Linking makes Wikipedia more useful and helps bind the project together. I even clicked on a few (in my crash course on the subject), including what I deem as the main article Pokémon, would be a good goal to work to promotion--again.
While there is absolutely no policy or guideline mandating lead citing (per WP:MOSLEADCITE) an article just looks better because of not being cluttered. As a summary of sourced content in the body of the article this addresses any requirements concerning issues of verifiability, biographies of living persons, and any other policies as long as exceptions are observed.
Suggestion: On the "Dates at museums" section and list, since the museum is obviously still active, would be to add something like that it is a "Dynamic list" at the top. Maybe add date content in a future dates subsection. Hope this helps. Have a nice day, --  Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)