Talk:Invincible season 2

Former good articleInvincible season 2 was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2025Good article nomineeListed
November 22, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Invincible season article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Invincible season article. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Invincible season 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Afrowriter (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Fwedthebwead (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fwedthebwead Done pls go through when ever you can Afro 📢Talk! 13:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Afrowriter Not all of my suggestions were looked at, may you look over my review again and check all of them? Fwedthebwead (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we do that now Afro 📢Talk! 04:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fwedthebwead All done Afro 📢Talk! 20:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Afrowriter Great, I'll change status to Good Article. Congrats! Fwedthebwead (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this Fwedthebwead (talk)

So sorry this review took so long!

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
  • "The second season of the American adult animated superhero series Invincible based on the comic book series of the same name, was..." needs a comma before "based" due to being a nonessential clause.  Done
  • "...created for television by comic book writer Robert Kirkman who also serves as the comics writer." Not to focus on the first sentence too much (sorry), but instead of writing "who also serves as the comics writer." just change it to "who also wrote the comics" as it's cleaner and easier to understand.  Done
  • "...while Sandra Oh and J. K. Simmons plays his parents..." It would be "play" instead of "plays" since the subject is plural.  Done
  • "...while Sandra Oh and J. K. Simmons plays..., while the supporting cast is formed by..." I would make the supporting cast a new sentence instead of tacking it on to the other sentence so it's less clunky.  Done
  • "Cecil sends Mark to stop the Maulers as they begin the process, forcing Angstrom to use his multiversal powers to summon variants of the Maulers, who nearly kill Mark against his wishes" Who is the "his"? Mark or Angstrom?  Done
  • "...Anissa fails to convince Mark and grievously beats him..." This is optional, but this is the second time the word "grievous" and could be replaced with a synonym.  Done
  • "...it differs from the source comics. and announced..." Sentence fragment.
  • "...different, that fans should not expect to see in the season, saying..." Fans should not expect to see what?  Done
  • "Kirkman also unveiled a new blue-and-black costume for the protagonist, Mark Grayson, which is set..." Seems strange to define who the protagonist is so late in the article and also referring to him as Mark Grayson instead of Invincible.  Done
  • "The website's critics consensus reads, highlights the show's vivid world-building and its ability to deliver impactful storytelling." It says "reads" as if it's about to quote something but doesn't.  Done
  • "...reviewed the second season of Invincible as a thoughtful step toward a bigger universe.'" Stray quotation mark at the end, fix as I cannot tell if there's supposed to be a quote or not.  Done
  1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  • "Amidst a trial by combat, Mark battles a kaiju, but is injured by its roar. " I'd wikilink "kaiju" in case a reader doesn't know what it is.  Done
  • "...remaining Guardian members Rex, Dupli-Kate, and Shrinking Rae confront the Lizard League..." Rex is the only one not named by his superhero name and only Dupli-Kate is wikilinked.  Done
  1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
  • Spot-checked citation 29 for the quotation "re-establishes itself as the best superhero show.", but it leaves the quote short as the full quote is "...re-establishes itself as the best superhero show in recent memory." and could be misleading. Done
  • Spot-checked citation 5, all good.
  • Spot-checked citation 11, quote matches.
  1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  • The critical response section looks at both critiques and praises for the show.
  1. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  2. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  3. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'll have it on hold for now until everything's fixed.

Fwedthebwead (talk)

AI generated tag

I added the AI generated tag here. The use of AI is basically confirmed as some links contain ChatGPT UTM source parameters, and the text displays several of the usual AI problems. This has been an issue with the editor involved for a while.

Specifically, the edits are full of AI's usual inappropriate and vapid editorializing, plus some flat-out hallucinations:

  • Here: The season also focuses on evolving relationships, especially between Mark and his mother, Debbie... further examines Mark's relationships with Atom Eve and Amber... -- Neither Debbie, Atom Eve, nor Amber are mentioned anywhere in the source it is cited to, outside captions -- let alone the AI editorializing attached to it.
  • Here: She emphasizes the series' ability to balance "unhinged chaos" with moments of genuine emotional resonance... She praises the voice performances... -- The reviewer does not "emphasize" this; the "unhinged chaos" is a brief aside about the previous season. Nor does she mention anything about the voice acting specifically. Basically, it's a large wad of AI slop with a fig-leaf attribution.
  • Here: The team incorporated unique sound effects, such as blending cannon blasts with 808 kick drum samples, to heighten the impact of fight scenes aimed to add depth to the storytelling and enhance the overall viewing experience... In AI's obsession with calling everything a "blend," it has introduced an error; just because two things exist doesn't make them "blended." (The source is a little unclear about how exactly the SFX were used, but it never mentions the two being "blended"; the closest it comes is "layering in cannon fire or an 808 kick drum sample," which is an or statement.) And the aimed to add depth to the storytelling and enhance the overall viewing experience is, once again, AI slop that does not originate in the source. At least the "unique" is gone.
  • Here: The alt text A large group of people in front of a building, picketing with signs reading "Writers Guild of America on Strike" is added to this image, which obviously contains nothing of the sort.

Do not treat the above list as just a few "quick fixes"; the problems here are most likely foundational. :@Fwedthebwead I don't know why this passed GA. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwed is a very new editor. My advice: check many more references for source-text integrity. This is the biggest issue with many articles. -- Reconrabbit 02:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnomingstuff
I’m not trying to argue with you, but I don’t understand how you can say it’s unclear how the sound effects were used when the source specifically explains it. or do youn expect me to write directly how it was written from the source ?
Here’s a direct quote from the source:

“For Angstrom’s mind glitches, we incorporated a good amount of his own portal sounds, since they are both visually similar and the idea is that he can’t keep straight what is reality and what is a different dimension. In addition to some of his signature portal SFX, we used glitching tech and scratching vinyls, as well as some tinnitus-style ringing SFX. The goal with his mind glitches was to show that he’s going mad with the thoughts and feelings of hundreds of alternate versions of himself.”

Afro 📢Talk! 10:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AI tell here is "blending"; none of this mentions "blending" anything. "Blending" sound effects would imply that they mixed separate sound effects with each other in order to sound like one sound, for example if you blend two separate vocal tracks to sound like one harmonized vocal. This is not clear as to what exactly they did with the sound effects -- whether they were used in separate instances, whether they were used at the same time, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnomingstuff Hi sorry for replying to this kind of late. I'm genuinely so sorry I didn't check thoroughly enough, as Reconrabbit said I'm new at this and it's my third GA review ever. I'll look at future reviews more meticulously and ask for second opinions so I don't callously look over stuff like this again. Not to repeat, but I can't stress enough how embarrassed and sorry I am. Fwedthebwead (talk) Fwedthebwead (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize -- it's not your fault, apologies if it came off that way. The only thing at fault here are the guidelines being outdated. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Invincible season 2

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Consensus exists that this article does not meet the criteria for GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, it has been asserted that this article used AI. Namely, it is "article generated nearly entirely with AI (the article is primarily by one editor who has a pattern of confirmed AI use, and there are ChatGPT source parameters in some of the revisions here), which has major problems that persist to the current version." No articles created with AI should be stamped with a GA seal. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98
There hasn’t been any confirmation that I mainly use AI. I've already informed the nominator in the past that I use Grammarly, so I’m not sure why you’re assuming I used AI to write the article. Yes, I do use ChatGPT sometimes to assist in searching for credible sources, but never to write the article itself. That would make no sense I’d never hand over full control of my writing to AI. am happy it was norminated for reaccessmen. so we can put an end to this AI disvussion once and for allt Afro 📢Talk! 14:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not AI was used, this article has significant issues. Nearly all of the "Production" section is sourced to interviews with the showrunner and excessively detailed, forming the basis for the bloated promotional tone. Especially egregious are the "Writing", "Filming", and "Animation style and techniques", which read more like a PR release than an encyclopedia article. Then you have the reception section, which if not created by an AI, looks like it was written by someone looking solely to advertise the show. As it stands the article clearly violates WP:NPOV, and should be delisted as not meeting GA criterion 4. The solution, as always, is to remember that an encyclopedia summarises information. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This may have been written with the use of AI" is not in and of itself a reason for delisting. What is a reason are the many flaws of AI generated text which fail our GA criteria for things like well-written and MOS compliance. The reason many people are averse to AI use in Wikipedia writing is that it doesn't care to write in a way that follows our policies and guidelines, key ones being "don't make shit up" and "don't write like a PR intern". In essence, I agree with Airship's comment above mine. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of cleanup has been done. You can take a look at the article again and cross-check it when you have some free time. @AirshipJungleman29 @Bgsu98@Trainsandotherthings Afro 📢Talk! 14:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the first paragraph of "Writing" shows that whatever cleanup has been done is hardly sufficient. I repeat: "The solution, as always, is to remember that an encyclopedia summarises information." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: A quick read of the article gives me the impression of a narrative written by one of the showrunners, not an encyclopedic entry. Especially worrying is that the first source I checked, cited for the statement "The season introduces new characters, notably Sterling K. Brown voicing Angstrom Levy, a villain with the ability to traverse dimensions", makes no mention of Brown or the character he supposedly voiced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invincible_season_2