Talk:Grimace Shake

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by BorgQueen talk 16:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Grimace Shake

• ... that TikTokers have been found dead and in strange locations after drinking the Grimace Shake (pictured)? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/style/grimace-milkshake.html
  • ALT1: ... that after drinking the Grimace Shake (pictured), TikTokers found themselves dead and in strange locations? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/style/grimace-milkshake.html
  • ALT2: ... that Grimace is deemed a "Griminal" after videos of "Grime Scenes" revealed the deaths of those who drank the Grimace Shake (pictured)? Source: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/what-is-the-grimace-shake-trend-on-tiktok-2189602/
  • ALT3: ... that the Grimace Shake (pictured) resulted in "Grime Scenes" where Grimace is the "Griminal"? Source: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/what-is-the-grimace-shake-trend-on-tiktok-2189602/
  • Reviewed:

Created by Endof (talk). Self-nominated at 15:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Grimace Shake; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• per What DYK is not we should not be advertising for McDonalds on the main page. I'm not commenting on the editors who wrote the article or the nominator, but the effect of this being on the main page, is the same as if they were paid. It is an advert for McDonalds.
• under "Content" on the same page is another rule "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness." In this case the hook does not refer to "established facts" rather it refers to some fork of a commercial fantasy universe, i.e. nobody involved was murdered. The so called facts will not be relevant for more than novelty or newness after a few months when the ad campaign ends. It certainly will not be of any interest after a year, not after 10 years, not after 20 years. I will put a "recentism" tag on the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm with Smallbones. No free advertising; violates WP:NOT. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Just hopping in here to say that all of these proposed hooks are unacceptable by the mere fact that they are untrue. No one has died from drinking a grimace shake, striking Hook 1 and ALT1 and 2 out. ALT3 is just jargony nonsense that has no informational content for people who don't already know what these terms mean already. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• @Endof: Per the above discussion, all hooks have been struck. A new hook is needed if this nomination is to proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• ALT4: ... that although McDonald's released the drink Grimace Shake and video game Grimace's Birthday to celebrate Grimace's birthday, the exact date of his birthday is uncertain? Source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-07-12/what-is-going-on-with-the-grimace-shake-let-us-explain
• ALT5: ... that McDonald's paid Fandom to replace its wiki page about Grimace with an advertisement promoting the Grimace Shake and Grimace's Birthday, upsetting fans who've contributed to the original article? Source: https://www.insider.com/grimace-superfan-upset-by-characters-mcdonalds-wiki-page-becoming-ad-2023-6 https://kotaku.com/mcdonalds-grimace-wiki-ad-happy-meal-fandom-history-1850552640
• Comment: I prefer alt5 over alt4 since sources seem to conflict on Grimace's birthday (see the footnote at Grimace Shake) Endoftalk 01:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Nomination is on hold until the merge discussion has concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I also prefer ALT5 over ALT4. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    • This is kind of an unusual nomination. Grimace's Birthday has been shoehorned into this nom, and does not meet the newness requirement (created July 15). I'm okay ignoring that and going with bundling the articles, but something to note for promoter.

    Review for both articles: Did some copyediting while reading and removed from Birthday one unimportant unparaphrased sentence and one questionably sourced (not clear whether YouTube channel GameXplain actually interviewed designer). Both articles long enough, no glaring neutrality issues, no other sourcing issues (current VG-specific sourcing seems ok, PR Newswire ok as primary source). Suggesting a revised hook like:

    • ALT5a ... that McDonald's paid Fandom to replace a user-written page about Grimace with advertising for the Grimace Shake menu item and Grimace's Birthday video game? Source (Kotaku): "McDonalds paid the site's owners to temporarily replace Grimace's biography with a paid advertisement ... Nathan's research wiped and replaced with reminders that people can go buy a Grimace meal at McDonalds and play a video game based on the character"

    Approve everything except the hook which I have just proposed and needs another set of eyes. If this runs, Vrxces should receive DYK credit for writing Grimace's Birthday, and Arconning for starting Grimace Shake. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Personally I think two separate hooks for the two articles have more potential. Some possible alternatives:

• ALT6: ... that a reviewer called the Grimace Shake "a troubling tribute to a garrulous grape-colored goofball"? Source: Mashed 2023
• ALT7: ... that McDonald's hesitated before jumping in on the #GrimaceShake trend? Source: TODAY.com 2023]
• ALT8: ... that Grimace's Birthday was praised by Kotaku as "art of the perfect 2000s internet time capsule"? Source: Kotaku 2023
• ALT9: ... that critics praised the surprising quality of Grimace's Birthday? Sources: See article.

All citations are in the article. There is so much potential here for great quirky hooks...don't waste them! Cielquiparle (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Request review of new ALT hooks by Hameltion or another reviewer. Or maybe more workshopping of new ALT hooks. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• With this stagnant for weeks I will take these on for review. It seems like everything is fine with both articles as the discussions have concluded and there's been no substantial changes since Hameltion approved them on August 27th. Frankly, I think the original concerns about advertising were extremely overblown - The existence of an article about a product is not inherently advertising and neither is mentioning a product on the front page. I am approving ALT7 and ALT8. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• The advertising concerns have also abated with distance in time from the product and its campaign. If we go forward with this, ALT8 seems more grabby to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

reopening due to issues raised at WT:DYK#Grimace's Birthday (nom)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion can now be found at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#Grimace's_Birthday_(nom). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• The nomination has been stuck for a while now, are there any updates? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor for the articles associated with this nomination, I would not support this nomination because it inherently advertises McDonalds. I have little confidence that any amount of rewording would resolve that issue. --Minoa (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'll have to disagree that this advertises McDonalds, especially since that new better hooks have been written to avoid appearing promotional and that this DYK has been in limbo for so long that the shake isn't even being offered anymore and the ad campaign ended, further making this DYK less promotional. Of the approved hooks, I prefer (in most prefered to least) ALT5, ALT8, ALT4, ALT7. ALT5 especially so since it seems the least promotional of hooks.Endoftalk 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• . I'm rejecting this because there seem's to be community consensus that the article is too promotional to appear on the main page. I also note that the article contains needs expansion tags in two sections, and we don't promote articles that have tags of any kind to the main page. I personally am uncomfortable placing a product of this kind on the main page; particularly since so much of the article is essentially a rehash of the promotional tools used by McDonald's and its online fan base. When we actually consider that the product itself is just a berry flavored milkshake; what makes the product unique is entirely its branding within the McDonald's fictional universe. By necessity any article on the product is going to focus on the marketing narrative and by extension act as a proxy of sorts for marketing McDonald's as a brand. For this reason, it is best to decline this nomination because the topic itself is inseparable from the product's marketing campaign. I also think the product itself might be better covered in an article on Grimace (character) which is currently a redirect rather than having its own separate page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the above. I don't think that an article about a promotion would inherently be "marketing by proxy". Otherwise, that would be like saying 1984 (advertisement) is a proxy advertisement for Apple. My point is that, just because an article is about an advertisement or a promotional campaign does not necessarily mean that the article is inherently "a rehash of promotional materials", especially if the coverage is still largely third-party. Such articles should instead stand on their own merits, and if the articles have issues like promotional tone, that's an issue with the article writing itself and can be resolved, rather than being something inherent to articles about campaigns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to that opinion, but enough editors have expressed concern that articles of this type do not belong on the main page both here and in the conversations linked above that I don't think it would be possible to promote the article. Not every permissible topic for article inclusion is necessarily editorially appropriate for the main page. I'd also note that your comparison to the 1984 commercial is a false analogy; as that particular topic wasn't about a product but the commercial itself. It also involved the promotion of a unique product that had a broad and lasting impact on the personal computer and was a major moment in the history of technology. Comparing it to a berry milkshake is just laughable. That topic also had the benefit of years of distance between the creation of the article and its use as an advertising campaign, and included diverse sources (including academic books) and media coverage over a 25 year period. This article is built entirely from a flurry of recent media coverage during McDonald's limited run of the Grimace Shake. There's no comparison to be made here between those two articles. The main concern here is one of perception, and following the spirit of WP:NOTPROMO as it applies to the main page. Recent products that are un-original beyond their branding are particularly susceptible to not be featured at DYK for this reason. A recent McDonald's product where the product itself is not unique (berry milkshakes have been around for a long time) and which is supported by only recent media coverage related to a McDonald's ad campaign isn't going to make it to the main page because of NOTPROMO policy. 4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Flavor

The cited source in the first paragraph indicates that McDonald's says the flavor is berry. Are there specific links that say otherwise? LizardJr8 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No other links, but the best way I've heard to describe the flavor is mixed berry yogurt, so I'd say the label would be mixed berry. Wheelz on thebus (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, there was an IP insisting it was "cake" flavor. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Why would they say it's very there's no Berry that's purple so is there a purple guy named Barry but they messed up and put in and everybody is eating it and drinking it because of the grimace Burger. 2603:8081:49F0:9980:24F9:A0E4:ED89:7E3E (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat (from 2 sections up) and further explain why this is not notable.

Wikipedia policy, esp. WP:NOT prohibits articles that are promotional, advertising, PR, marketing, etc. This article is entirely about a single promotion and the accompanying PR, marketing, etc. One of likely well over a thousand McDonald's promotions. McDonald's coming out with promotions is entirely WP:Routine. All the sources cited in this article are puff pieces, that ultimately originated with McDonald's PR campaign. We also have rules about recent events WP:NOTNEWS. This article is entirely about recent events. The promotion just started in June and appears to be over now. Nobody will remember it in 2 weeks, 2 years, 10 years, or 20 years.

Note that if an article does not pass the policy WP:NOT, then the guideline WP:Notability does not apply - it simply cannot "grant notability."

It's July 4, a national holiday, I have other things that need to be done today. I'll likely put this up for deletion soon, but I doubt it can be today or tomorrow. If anybody disputes this reasoning, please put your objections here. But please do not continue reverting the tags I put on the page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about promotional content on Wikipedia and I understand why you've rejected my DYK because it's too novel and a tad bit too promotional, but I think this article just barely passes notability because the many published reliable sources about the Grimace Shake and trend establish its notability.

Though there are indeed puff pieces about the Grimace Shake, many reliable sources like the NYT, CNN, and WaPo have published articles about the shake. It doesn't matter that McDonald's did a PR campaign because if many widely-read newspapers publishes about it, that alone establishes its notability. McDonald's is the biggest fast food chain after all

The unexpected Grimace Shake trend also furthered its notability and scope of coverage. Even more news articles were written about the shake when the trend on TikTok started. The articles were written independently from McDonalds (inductively, wouldn't it be too risky to have a campaign that stated "our mascot kills those who drink our drinks"?)

I found enough sources that are both reliable and also seem independent from McDonalds PR, given that they also covered the negative aspects of the shake. If the article happens to stay up, we can use those to balance out the promotional tone of the article:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

There's also a AfD for the Shamrock Shake that resulted in keep from a while back that may interest you. Endoftalk 23:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:ROUTINE and WP:PERSISTENCE. If RS are still writing about this shake in six months' time, then you would have a solid argument for notability. If this is just a brief burst of coverage that will die away after the limited-time run is over, then the subject doesn't merit an article. At the moment, we can't say one way or the other, so I would rather default to no article until we're sure the subject is notable. If the page is redirected to List of McDonald's products#Shakes as proposed, then it can easily be restored if it turns out to have lasting notability. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Just to be clear why failing WP:NOT means that an article can't be notable:
  • from WP:Notability "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia." The second bold part is linked in the original to WP:NOT, but that bolding is mine.
  • from the 3rd paragraph of WP:Notability:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."

Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Grimace Shake in popular culture

How about if we'd make an article regarding the Grimace Shake in popular culture, as the section could be merged to it and secondary sources exist? Is it notable enough? NotAGenious (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Languages

German, Czech, and Portuguese Wikipedia deleted Grimace Shake! New Welaeonska (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Created an portuguese version of the article, but not because of you :) Iyusi766 (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

There needs to be a mention to the tiktok trend.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not notable for Wikipedia

Sure its popular now but no one will remember it in 10 years Opok2021 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

grimace shake ohio sigma skibidi toilet fanum tax kai cenat griddy will remember what you have said and shall punish your future or current offspring by force-feeding them videos of a man having sexual actions involving a Neopets avatar, a spoon and a pickle jar full of onion skin. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Typo

McDonald's suggested that people to donate to the

Kill the first 'to' 2001:4479:4701:A500:C07F:AF75:FF64:3DEB (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting us know Arconning (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Promotion and GA nomination

Hi Arconning, I started to pick up the GA review but almost immediately noticed a lot of promotional content that would prevent passing it. Rather than failing it right now or walking away, I thought I would post the first few notes I started to write and hope they will help:

• The character Grimace was first introduced in the McDonaldland media franchise in 1971 as "Evil Grimace". He steals milkshakes and is the "embodiment of a milkshake or a taste bud", according to McDonald's. This seems promotional. McDonaldland was found in court to be an unauthorized adaptation of H.R. Pufnstuf. The court case focused on Mayor McCheese, but "Evil Grimace" with his many arms was claimed to be a version of the bug-eyed Seymour Spider by the Krofts. The voice of Pufnstuf himself, Lennie Weinrib, played Grimace in the television commercials. This real-world connection seems more significant to "Grimace" as a character than McDonald's claiming a purple spider/blob is the "embodiment of a milkshake".
• The exact date of his birthday is uncertain, He's a puppet monster? Isn't his birthday a promotional concept that includes merch, food, and an online video game? I don't understand how his birthday could be uncertain.
• Grimace Birthday Meal, which consists of the shake, medium fries, and a choice of a Big Mac or 10-piece Chicken McNuggets. That's what they put on the restaurant to sell people food? This is an ad for the meal just short of including the price.
• McDonald's suggested that people donate to the Ronald McDonald House Charities "in lieu of gifts" for Grimace. Very promotional. I'm sure there's a reason to link the charity from McDonald's main article, but I don't see a connection to this milk shake other than the promotion described in the article.
• Guillaume Huin, the social media director for McDonald's, said the Grimace Shake trend was unexpected and described it as "brilliant creativity, unfiltered fun, peak absurdist gen z humor". However, at the time he felt that acknowledging the trend would be risky, as he felt that "the campaign was already wildly successful, both on a social and business standpoint, so why would we take the 'risk' to jump in?". Reliable sources tend to describe this as "unintended viral marketing". The article here seems to be praising the creativity and authenticity of what is largely marketing.
• Controversies seems handled well.

As far as verifiability, the article matches the sources. It's just that a lot of these sources are promotional to varying degrees. I hope this helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 06:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grimace Shake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Corvette ZR1 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:QUICKFAIL because this is still a start-class article. The lead section, background, and the product info all need expansion, and almost all of the effort put into the article goes to the "Reception" section. I've added some section expansion templates to help.

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.

Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 340 for Engineers - Fall 2023 - 66816

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Snokpok, Sillygoose179, Audmk1, As0825 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Rename

I think we should turn this Grimace Shake article into just a 'Grimace' article, to discuss the mascot as a whole instead of just the drink. Cereally8 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grimace Shake/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Begocc (talk · contribs) 11:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

WP:QUICKFAIL, Still a start class, issues from previous GA nomination slightly addressed. maybe could get reassessed as C, but a long shot from a good article. Most effort is still on the reception and controversy, but the lead is better and more balanced, it still needs expansion (as well as the rest of the page).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Begocc (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Begocc: May I close this nomination for you? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: see User talk:Begocc#Grimace Shake quickfail. @Begocc and Arconning: would you be happy for this review to be voided and for the article to placed back in the Good Article Nominations queue (with its old timestamp) for somebody else to review? — Bilorv (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Did not see that. Whoops. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yea, just void this review. it was pretty bad anyway :/ Begocci (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grimace Shake/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024

Under the section Roll Out, the mention of the game company Krool Toys should be linked to their official Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krool_Toys Beeperboy (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done thanks! NotAGenious (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)