# Talk:Pokémon Trading Card Game Pocket

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon Trading Card Game Pocket/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Juxlos (talk · contribs) 05:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
No immediately noticeable issues with grammar and prose.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Earwig has a somewhat large score from a copyvio check, but it appears to be some aggregator website that copies from the article in the first place. No copyvio from other sources.
"Since 2025, expansions have released on a roughly monthly cadence. Each expansion offers new cards from which to build decks, new single-player challenges, and new cosmetic items for players to customise their decks and display their collections." this appears to be WP:OR, or at least not referenced inline.
This is referenced by Source 12, at least if I remember correctly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The Development section of the article feels a little on the short side with just a single paragraph (out of 3 paragraphs in the section, 2 are release-related). If reliable sources are available, this should be expanded. @Pokelego999: do you think you can try finding sources as well? Maybe Japanese interviews in Famitsu or somesuch?
The reason the section is like that was because there was nothing in Famitsu or any other source I could find. I included what was available and did my best to provide what context I could. I cannot add sources that do not exist to the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
"An update for the game plans to [...]" this should probably go in the "Development" section instead.
I disagree on the grounds that is talking about a change to a gameplay feature, which is relevant strictly to the gameplay; putting it in development would just be more confusing, I feel. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Not using the Video game reviews template? While not necessarily part of the GA criteria, it is recommended in MOS:VGREC, and Metacritic certainly contains sufficient review scores to compose one.
I'll add one of these once I'm home. I can't access all of the sources right now so I'll get to it then. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
On that note, I think the reception section's prose is a bit on the long side. The one in Pokémon Go, which -probably- had more reviews 9 years ago, is shorter by around 600 characters and has a yellow tag on it.
To be fair, the tag on Go's article is likely due to the litany and length of its subsections. (Downloads and revenue, criticism and incidents, etc) The Reception section for that article is quite short all things considered. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I counted nine different reviewers being quoted. Criticism on the gacha mechanics, praise for the ease of access, and description of nostalgic value are 1 to 3 sentences per reviewer (3 each) and I think these could be trimmed down to maybe 2 sentence total by compounding the reviewers.
The "Revenue" subsection feels a little word-padded, for lack of a better term. I would recommend trimming some sentences in general, e.g.:
Within ten weeks, the game had breached $400 million USD in earnings, and though spending dipped briefly in January 2025, the release of the Space-Time Smackdown expansion caused an increase in player spending that brought the game's earnings to over $500 million USD. → Within ten weeks, the game's earnings passed USD 400 million, and though spending dipped in January 2025, the Space-Time Smackdown expansion brought the game's earnings to over USD 500 million.
On that specific quote, I couldn't access the web due to regional blocks, but how did pocketgamer.biz source know about the impact of a pack released 3 weeks after the article's publication?
Good catch; it seems I accidentally put the wrong source for that sentence. I've added the correct source for this statement, so that should make more sense now. I'll do some rewording when I'm adding the VGREC scores later today. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Juxlos I've added the VGREC scores and trimmed the Revenue section a bit. Let me know if more can be done.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: I would still say the reception section, specifically reviewer comments, could be consolidated and the level of detail somewhat reduced. For example:
Ana Diaz, writing for Polygon highlighted the game's daily log-in system, finding it accessible and rewarding for players who did not have much time to sink into the game. [...] Writing for Pocket Gamer, Jupiter Hadley highlighted the game's introduction to battling, finding it friendly to series beginners.
Can be consolidated to
Ana Diaz from Polygon and Jupiter Hadley from Pocket Gamer praised the game for being accessible to casual players and beginners.
Or for simplification:
Moises Taveras, writing in a review of the game for Kotaku, found that the game, while entertaining and fun, was similar to other similar gacha games, and found its card obtainment system to revolve too heavily around those mechanics. They believed that it ruined their enjoyment of the game, as it was a game unlikely to remain active if it was not making money.
can be reduced to:
Moises Taveras, writing for Kotaku, called the game "good, bite-sized fun" but criticized it for revolving too heavily around gacha mechanics. Taveras also wrote of his wariness of the loss of the game's digital content when it reached its end of service.
Similar trimmings could be done with all the other reviews. Juxlos (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
@Juxlos trimmed where requested, though I'm not sure where else you want trimmings. Please let me know on that since I'm not sure myself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No noticeable bias in the tone.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No edit wars evident. Article is largely stable in content since the pre-GA expansion. Only major addition was a couple days back and that was restructuring content.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The infobox image checks out as PD-text. The gameplay image has a proper rationale.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Will continue shortly. Juxlos (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Some prose issues. Juxlos (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: I think the issues have been addressed adequately. Passing. Juxlos (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)