Talk:Grimace Shake/GA3

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

Reviewer: Queen of Hearts (talk · contribs) 04:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This'll be a fun one; I should get to this within the next 48 hours. Best of luck to both of us. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 04:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I'll do my best to improve the article as much as I can! Arconning (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts Just a follow up on the review. Arconning (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for delay. I'll have it done by end of the day tomorrow at the latest. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 20:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

well I hope you had fun with it! Bill L. Hal (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I think that's it. Placing on hold; please ping when done. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 01:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts I believe everything has been addressed! Arconning (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• The NY Post (ref 5) is generally unreliable.
  • Removed.
• Refs in lead should be moved down per MOS:LEADCITE.
  • Done.
• Copyvio checks return fine.
• "McDonald's paid Fandom to replace the article about Grimace on the McDonald's wiki with a promotion for its Grimace merchandise, which led to controversy." Don't know if you should link to different sections like this in general, but I'd move "which" outside the link.
  • Done.
• Insider (refs 2, 14, and 25) has no consensus on reliability but looks fine here.
• "In June 2023, McDonald's announced the release by changing their profile picture on social media to a picture of Grimace looking at the Grimace Shake." Is it worth specificing "TikTok, Twitter and Instagram", which is what the source says?
  • Done.
• "The first instance of this trend was created by TikTok user @thefrazmaz (Austin Frazier)." Source says "TikTok user @thefrazmaz (Austin Frazier) seems to be the first person to make the slightly disturbing Grimace Shake Incident..." emphasis mine; probably worth changing to "The first instance of this trend is believed to have been created..."
  • Done.
• "McDonald's did not anticipate the Grimace Shake's popularity...attempt from McDonald's to inadvertently address the trend while claiming Grimace's innocence." Don't see the "claiming Grimace's innocence" in the source. Also two footnotes to the same source in a row.
  • Done.
• "A TikTok video trend with the hashtag #GrimaceShake began circulating...while drinking the shake and giving the shake outstanding reviews." Don't see the "outstanding reviews" part in the source. Also two footnotes to the same source in a row.
  • Done. Removed unsourced claim.
• "Some have been confused as to what the Grimace shake tastes like...the Grimace Shake received polarized reviews." Two footnotes to the same source in a row.
  • Done.
• "In this way, McDonald's indirectly addressed the #GrimaceShake trend while still allowing for open interpretation by the audience." Don't see this in source.
  • Removed claim.
• "However, the company has stated that it never intended for the shake to become so viral, with McDonald's social media director saying..." Change "McDonald's social media director" to "Guillaume Huin" or "Huin" as he's already introduced by name earlier in the article.
  • Done.
• "In the quarter after the Grimace Shake release, McDonald's reported $6.5 billion in sales which beat sales estimates by $0.2 billion." Add a comma between "in sales" and "which beat". Also change "$0.2 billion" to "$200 million" (not OR, see WP:CALC).
  • Done.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.