Talk:Steven Universe

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022

I would like to include Steven Universe soundtracks in the Soundtracks section. 223.178.80.173 (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Neutrality and "Good Article" status

I do not believe that this article meets the standards necessary to be considered a neutrally-written article, nor one that can, without doubt, maintain the "good article" status as a result.

The main issue is the lack of substantial criticism towards the show. The article's sources are consistently those that show praise for the show or focus on objective elements within it, leaving out relevant viewpoints. As it stands, the article's only mentions of criticism are points about the release schedule.

Wikipedia requires "all majority and significant minority views". As is, I do not believe this requirement is met.

I have included articles to express at least one area of additional criticism.

Queer Utopia in Steven Universe "Bismuth" and Steven Universe's Racial Coding Problem Writing in Subtext: The Brilliance and Problems of Steven Universe

GeoWaffle (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say the article DOES meet the Good article status and IS neutral. I'd add that the "Reception" section is pretty robust at this point (its a LOT more robust than many other similar animated shows). At the same time, I'd be ok with all three of those sources being added to this article, as they appear to be reliable sources. In terms of the "lack of substantial criticism towards the show". Some criticism is on places like Tumblr and other sources falling under WP:SPS (like blogs on Medium, or are just YouTubers, so it couldn't be added to the page. Still, I do think a pretty wide swath of reviews are added, at present. I'd be fine with adding articles like this one, about the show's focus on restorative justice as opposed to other shows. Historyday01 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

An update. The second paragraph of the "Influence and legacy" section mentions the California Law Review article I mentioned. The suggested reviews section (including the Queer Utopia article you mentioned) includes SEVEN articles which should be added and if I have some time this year, I'll try to add them in. Historyday01 (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis edits

@1989, I believe many of your edits to the synopsis are not an improvement. Removing the labels "in the second season", "in the third season", etc. deletes signposts that are valuable to the reader: Steven Universe is a television show that is organized into several seasons, each of which has its own theme or arc, and it's most illuminating to the reader to organize the synopsis in terms of those seasons as well. Something like "in the aftermath" doesn't give the reader useful information about the show, but "in the third season" does.

Your synopsis is also extremely uneven in terms of the amount of detail given to different parts of the show. The fact that Steven experiences Pink Diamond's memories in season 5 isn't as important as the entirety of season 2. I understand (though I don't really agree with) the critique that White Diamond should be mentioned by name if Blue and Yellow are, but that doesn't mean three whole sentences are needed for the last five episodes of the show. The original version of the synopsis gives about a paragraph to the overall premise of the show, and about a sentence to the principal events or themes of each season, which is much better balanced and paced. (The discussion you linked elsewhere said "a lot of space is spent on the first season", but that's not really true. The previous synopsis spent about one sentence on the events of the first season; most of that paragraph is about the premise and backstory relevant to the show as a whole, although it states that the first season is when that information is revealed.)

@Harryhenry1 thanked my edit reverting most of your edits to the synopsis; perhaps they would like to weigh in here? AJD (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Copying what I said on their talk page for context and pinging @Aoba47: Hi there, you may not be aware, but I am making numerous of changes to satisfy the FA criteria as I will be bringing it to FAC soon. An experienced FA contributor had concerns about the Synopsis section, including no mention of White Diamond, I agreed with them and revised it. It’d be much easier for me if you’d bring your comments there instead of blanket reverting my changes. I also am curious to hear what this user has to say. 1989 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@1989: @Ajd: Thank you for the ping. I did not have an issue with the seasons being discussed in the plot summary. My issue was that it was done in a repetitive way that detracted from the prose. The final paragraph turned into a listing of "In X season, this happened". The seasons could still be mentioned in the synopsis without that happening. The sentence structure could have been varied to keep the prose more engaging and not as repetitive. I have no issue with the seasons being brought up here. Apologies for not making that clearer in the peer review.

To be clear, I asked a question about White Diamond. It was not a critique or a requirement. I noticed that White Diamond was not discussed in the summary, unlike the other Diamonds, so I was asking for clarification about that, which again was not meant as a critique. For my "a lot of space is spent on the first season" comment, I thought the balancing in the summary seemed off. To me, the second paragraph seemed devoted to the first season, while multiple seasons seemed to be compacted into the third paragraph. I understand that this summary should only cover the highlights of the show, but I still wanted to ask about it to get further clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have uncollapsed my comments in the peer review. I originally did it to keep the peer review more accessible, but I do understand how that may not have been the best idea. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I moved back some changes described in your second paragraph. 1989 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to make some further copyedits and reintroduce the season structure as guideposts, hopefully in a way that is not as repetitive as @Aoba47 found the previous version to be. AJD (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)