Talk:Rick and Morty/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 12:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll be reviewing :) Could take up to a week. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on this! I appreciate you getting a peer review before coming to GA. Here are my comments:

Everything in the lead should appear in the article body as well, I did not see the bit about it being a $100-million franchise in the body.
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since season 6 is over now, I think you could remove the sentence about season 5 from the lead and replace it with something like "The sixth season premiered on September 4, 2022, and consisted of ten episodes."
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ref #7 says anything about a Machiavellian ego, might need a better ref.
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"cashing in on our ‘Rick and Morty’ street cred." - This is a direct quote so it needs a reference.
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
broken the story that day - What does this mean? I've only heard of breaking a story in the context of journalism.
- That's film-speak for coming up with each individual scene for that story and arranging them. I reworded for clarity. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thereunder I have never heard this word before! I'm not saying you are wrong, just double-check that it fits here.
- Double checked, seems fine. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The series addresses the insignificance of human existence as compared to the size of the universe, with no recognizable divine presence, as described by Lovecraft's philosophy of cosmicism. I think this should have a source, something mentioning Lovecraft specifically.
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #146 - what makes comicbookdb a reliable source?
- Accepted by WP:CMC/REF. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simpsons couch gag - The summary seems overly detailed, I would stick to just the information from ref #144. You can also remove the YouTube reference since it is embedded in ref #144.
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it normal to reference walmart.com and blu-ray.com in TV articles? They don't seem like reliable sources to me. To be honest, the DVD release dates are not that interesting to me, I think you could remove this info but it is up to you.
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for the digital extras which are referenced to the iTunes store. At a minimum I don't think the iTunes stores are reliable sources, and personally I recommend removing this whole paragraph.
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, they are the only characters featured from any property held by producer Warner Bros. (under its Global Kids, Young Adults and Classics division since 2019) through subsidiary Turner Broadcasting, one that would hold a variety of animated characters through Adult Swim, Cartoon Network, or any affiliation or collaboration with them. I could not find this info in ref #143.
- Removed. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have for you! No issues with images, neutrality, stability, or coverage, just need to clean up the references and prose. I'll place on hold for now so you can make adjustments. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cerebellum! I believe I've addressed everything. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Happy to pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]