| colspan=”3″ | ”’2.”’ {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}, as shown by a [[WP:GAN/I#R3|source spot-check]]: <!– Verifiable. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). –>
| colspan=”3″ | ”’2.”’ {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}, as shown by a [[WP:GAN/I#R3|source spot-check]]: <!– Verifiable. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). –>
<!– It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout. –>
<!– It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout. –>
{{GATable/item|2a|+|References are laid out cleanly with {{tl|reflist}}, and the mix of sources is sensible this kind of topic. No major problems with the reference section itself.
{{GATable/item|2a|?|
}}
}}
<!– All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. –>
<!– All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. –>
{{GATable/item|2b|+|Most substantive claims are supported by inline citations to reasonably reliable sources (trade press, academic work, official announcements). A few non-obvious claims in the lead (e.g. similarity to ”Dinosaucers”, “post-war period sentient machines trope”, and influence on children’s job preferences) are only clearly supported later in the article and would benefit from either inline citations in the lead or more explicit attribution, but overall the sourcing meets GA level here.
{{GATable/item|2b|?|
}}
}}
<!– It contains no original research. –>
<!– It contains no original research. –>
{{GATable/item|2c|-|The streaming-availability paragraph in ”’Production and release”’ is uncomfortably close to synthesis: “”Dinotrux: Supercharged” no longer offers any official means to watch it, although some of the removed shows were put on Peacock. It is unclear why ”Dinotrux: Supercharged” was removed before the main series, which is predicted to stay at least until January 1, 2028.” That bundles together several observations/predictions from a single “What’s on Netflix” piece and turns them into fairly sweeping statements in Wikipedia’s voice. For GA this needs to be rewritten to stick very closely to what the source actually says (and clearly attributed as the source’s view), avoiding Wikipedia making its own predictions or asserting “no official means”.
{{GATable/item|2c|?|
}}
}}
<!– It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. –>
<!– It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. –>
{{GATable/item|2d|?|
{{GATable/item|2d||
}}
}}
|- style=”vertical-align:top;”
|- style=”vertical-align:top;”
}}
}}
<!– Focus. It stays [[Wikipedia:Article size|focused on the topic]] without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). –>
<!– Focus. It stays [[Wikipedia:Article size|focused on the topic]] without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). –>
{{GATable/item|3b|-|The core aspects (premise, main characters, episode/season structure, basic production history, critical response, academic analysis, awards) are present, but there are still notable gaps for GA breadth: (1) there is no dedicated section on **merchandising and tie-ins**, despite the existence of a Mattel toy line, publishing tie-ins and mobile apps that appear to be sourceable; (2) **popularity and audience/parent reception** is only touched on very indirectly (one trade review and a couple of academic perspectives). For a long-running, toyetic children’s series I’d expect at least short, sourced subsections on merch and on popularity/audience response. (I am aware that another editor removed the Merch section I put in, but that’s still my review…)
{{GATable/item|3b|?|
}}
}}
<!– Neutral. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). –>
<!– Neutral. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). –>
{{GATable/item|4|?|
{{GATable/item|4||
}}
}}
<!– Stable. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). –>
<!– Stable. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). –>
{{GATable/item|5|?|
{{GATable/item|5||
}}
}}
|- style=”vertical-align:top;”
|- style=”vertical-align:top;”
| colspan=”3″ | ”’6.”’ {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}: <!– Images. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). –>
| colspan=”3″ | ”’6.”’ {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}: <!– Images. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). –>
<!– Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. –>
<!– Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. –>
{{GATable/item|6a|?|
{{GATable/item|6a||
}}
}}
<!– Images are [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature|relevant]] to the topic, and have [[Wikipedia:CAP|suitable captions]]. –>
<!– Images are [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature|relevant]] to the topic, and have [[Wikipedia:CAP|suitable captions]]. –>
{{GATable/item|6b|?|
{{GATable/item|6b||
}}
}}
<!– Overall. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). –>
<!– Overall. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). –>
{{GATable/item|7|n|At this point I don’t think the article yet meets the Good article criteria. The main blockers are: (1) prose and Premise needing a solid copyedit and some MOS tidy-up (1a, 1b); (2) the streaming paragraph straying into OR/synthesis (2c); (3) missing coverage of merchandising and popularity/audience reception (3a); and (4) a reception section that relies heavily on negative/critical sources without much balance (4). All of these are fixable with targeted work. If you’re keen to keep working on it, I’m happy to leave this ”’on hold”’ for a short period so you can address those points before I make a final decision.
{{GATable/item|7|<!– Replace this comment with your final assessment: “y” or “n” –>|
}}
Per [[WP:RGA]] “the nominal hold period is one week (this is a suggestion, not a requirement)” and I think this can be fixed within that time so I’m going to set it as one week from today (in the full awareness that it took me almost a week to get round to writing the actual review)
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Easternsahara (talk · contribs) 22:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Joereddington (talk · contribs) 09:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Go on then, I’ve watched this with the kids.
Initial ‘as-reading’ thoughts, I’ll do the proper table shortly.
Lead:
- Didn’t the show win a couple of emmys? I’m sure it did.
- It won two, I couldn’t find any other awards that it won
Premise:
- This feels like less of a premise and more of a ‘things that happened in the first five or so episodes’. I’m hazy without rewatching but I think Dozer got rescued earlier, the ostracized is later and less of a big deal and the garage is quite far into the first season. I feel like this section definitely needs reworking and maybe retitling.
- I’ll keep it like this and expand the season section to have more plot
Characters:
I’m bumping on the fact we have Garby but not D-Struct’s minion and the other reptools, who are respectively much larger characters (at least early one, possibly they get killed off in season three)
- Noted, I will include the scraptools
Episodes:
I don’t think it’s in the GA criteria (and I’m mindful about overstepping) but there’s nothing in the list of seasons that readers can’t get from the table and I’d drop it. It’s definitely not in the GA criteria to complain about the sources for episode numbers being future sources rather than past ones so don’t worry about that.
My main query in this section is “Why *did* they call it supercharged?”
-
- It is because the dinotrux got special parts that “supercharged” them and made them go faster, have stronger abilities, etc.
Production and release:
Second paragraph _looks_ ORy – I’ll come back and check that later. I was expecting more from this section – interviews with creators and so on.
- I don’t think it is OR, also I could find suprisingly little on interviews with the creators and such. It didn’t get much attention from the media and I have included everything in Google News that I could find as well as various things that I found in Google Scholar. I couldn’t find anything on Newspapers, or JSTOR. but if you find that this is incomplete because of sources that I didn’t include here then that’s fine
Reception, themes and analysis:
There’s been an undercurrent of slightly odd phrasing throughout and this section is particularly in need of a copy edit. There are various [who?] flags here – I don’t remember if that’s official GA but I personally think it’s worth dealing with them.
- I addressed the who flags
In general this paragraph is mostly negative and I honestly think there exist somewhere people who like it (it got awards and seven seasons) so some balance is needed here.
- The awards section is right below there, I could not find any positive reviews in reliable sources
Extra:
I think I would expect this sort of article to include a section on merchandising
- I couldn’t find sources for that
Overall:
I think I will do a full review with the table in a day or so, but I think at the moment it’s bordering on a quickfail either on the basis of needing substantial copyediting or because it doen’t address several major aspects of the topic: in particular, awards, popularity and audience reception, and merchandising or other spin-off products.
- I put all the awards that I could find sourcing for, there weren’t any sources on Dinotrux toys or merchandise, and I couldn’t find any other sources for the audience reception part
If you wanted to take a run at the comments above (which may or may not be valid) before I do the review proper, that would be cool. I’ll go and watch some episodes with the 5yo over the next couple of days.
Joe (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the review Joe, I have responded to your comments. I’ll be expanding the season-by-season plot section because it was pointed out to me that even though I can’t include an episode-by-episode summary of the plot because of MOS:SIZE, I still need to include a season-by-season summary as done in the 30 Rock article. User:Easternsaharareview this 17:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- I thought “well that’s surely not right, there are loads of sources” but I’ve done my own search, and you are right, most of the results are promo-crap. Also, it appears that all the reliable sources hate a show I was quite fond of so that’s sad.
- So, where are we. I think you have plans to do various rewrites based on my first comments and your own sensible thoughts about season summaries. I think it’s probably best I give you a few days to do that and then I go haul out the old \{\{GA table}} Joe (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | There’s an undercurrent of slightly odd phrasing throughout. The lead strings together a lot of “It was…” sentences and has slightly clunky wording (e.g. “It was given as an example of media which push boys to choose different occupations than girls.”). The Premise section reads more like “things that happened in the first few episodes” than a concise, clearly accurate summary of the basic setup – I’m hazy without a rewatch, but I’m fairly sure the timing of Dozer’s rescue, Revvit’s ostracism and the building of the garage doesn’t quite match the show. There are also small but telling issues like “Best Voice Performance Animationi Program or Series” in the awards table. Overall it needs a solid copyedit and a rethink of the Premise to pass 1a. |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Structurally the article is broadly in line with MOS (infobox, lead, sections, refs, categories) and correctly tagged for American English and MDY dates. However, the lead is a single dense paragraph and doesn’t fully follow WP:LEAD – ideally it should separate identification/premise, production, and reception/awards. The Premise section also feels too in-universe and episodic per MOS:PLOT. These MOS issues are fixable but mean 1b isn’t there yet. On the other hand I’m aware I’m being a bit picky here. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | References are laid out cleanly with {{reflist}}, and the mix of sources is sensible this kind of topic. No major problems with the reference section itself. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Most substantive claims are supported by inline citations to reasonably reliable sources (trade press, academic work, official announcements). A few non-obvious claims in the lead (e.g. similarity to Dinosaucers, “post-war period sentient machines trope”, and influence on children’s job preferences) are only clearly supported later in the article and would benefit from either inline citations in the lead or more explicit attribution, but overall the sourcing meets GA level here. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | The streaming-availability paragraph in Production and release is uncomfortably close to synthesis: “Dinotrux: Supercharged no longer offers any official means to watch it, although some of the removed shows were put on Peacock. It is unclear why Dinotrux: Supercharged was removed before the main series, which is predicted to stay at least until January 1, 2028.” That bundles together several observations/predictions from a single “What’s on Netflix” piece and turns them into fairly sweeping statements in Wikipedia’s voice. For GA this needs to be rewritten to stick very closely to what the source actually says (and clearly attributed as the source’s view), avoiding Wikipedia making its own predictions or asserting “no official means”. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Cool beans |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The core aspects (premise, main characters, episode/season structure, basic production history, critical response, academic analysis, awards) are present, but there are still notable gaps for GA breadth: (1) there is no dedicated section on **merchandising and tie-ins**, despite the existence of a Mattel toy line, publishing tie-ins and mobile apps that appear to be sourceable; (2) **popularity and audience/parent reception** is only touched on very indirectly (one trade review and a couple of academic perspectives). For a long-running, toyetic children’s series I’d expect at least short, sourced subsections on merch and on popularity/audience response. (I am aware that another editor removed the Merch section I put in, but that’s still my review…) |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Actually yeah, I was expecting more fan content |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Fine |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | I’m fine. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No problems. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | At this point I don’t think the article yet meets the Good article criteria. The main blockers are: (1) prose and Premise needing a solid copyedit and some MOS tidy-up (1a, 1b); (2) the streaming paragraph straying into OR/synthesis (2c); (3) missing coverage of merchandising and popularity/audience reception (3a); and (4) a reception section that relies heavily on negative/critical sources without much balance (4). All of these are fixable with targeted work. If you’re keen to keep working on it, I’m happy to leave this on hold for a short period so you can address those points before I make a final decision. |
Per WP:RGA “the nominal hold period is one week (this is a suggestion, not a requirement)” and I think this can be fixed within that time so I’m going to set it as one week from today (in the full awareness that it took me almost a week to get round to writing the actual review)
