Talk:Voltorb

Biology?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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

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

Appearances

  1. 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

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.