# Talk:Steven Universe

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)

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)


### Steven Universe
Seven years ago, I expanded the article and improved it enough for it to become a GA. Recently I decided to work on it again. Sometime this year, I’m going to put this up for FAC. Any suggestions or improvements are welcome. Thanks, 1989 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


#### Aoba47
##### Lead and general comments
Logos are sometimes used in the infobox for television shows as they could be considered free content. Examples are the logo for The Random Years or the logo for That's So Raven. It is just an option to consider for the future. I have used a title card in this context without an issue, but if you do want to keep that, then I would recommend expanding on the rationale for its inclusion in the WP:FUR.
The logo was uploaded on Commons years ago, then got deleted due to the complexity of the logo. 1989 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. I could see that being done to the complexitiy or even with just the font being more specific to the show. That is why I tried to word my comment as more of a suggestion or an idea rather than saying that it should be done. I think that a title card is better in this context anyway as it allows for readers to see the animation for this show right at the top of the article, which in my opinion provides a better introduction to the series than just a logo. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Done Rationale changed. 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I am guessing that the citations in the infobox for the genres are there because this could be controversial or contested information? I know genre warriors can cause a lot of headache (and not just for music articles) so I can understand why. That being said, I do not think that it is necessary to cite the production company in the infobox, as I would imagine that information would be in the article and cited accordingly. That being said, I am not sure Amazon is the best source for this. I would instead go for more articles or reviews instead.
Done 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
It may be helpful to link pilot in the lead. Later in the same paragraph, I would also spell out television film rather than using TV as I think that acronym is generally avoided, but I have honestly not seen much discussion on that in particular.
Done, except one, I spelled out television pilot instead. 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Be consistent on whether or not the serial comma is used. There is an instance where it is used, Garnet (Estelle), Amethyst (Michaela Dietz), and Pearl (Deedee Magno Hall), and an instance where it is not used, Books, comics and video games. I prefer to use it, but whatever way you decide to go with it, it is important to be consistent.
Fixed 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that there are still some inconsistencies with this. The serial comma is used here, love, family, and the importance of healthy interpersonal relationships, when it is not used in earlier lists for the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Overlooked that one and a few others, fixed. 1989 (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Why not mention the soundtracks in the lead alongside the books, comics, and video games? The Steven Universe soundtracks could be linked there. It seems like a major part of the show not to mention in the lead.
Done 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I am on the fence about this one so take it with a grain of salt. Do you think that it would be necessary to introduce in the prose that Adventure Time is another animated television show? It is somewhat dropped in there like something readers should already know, but some may be less than familiar with it. Aside from that, in the same paragraph, the link for storyboard should be moved up to the first instance. I would also be mindful of the repetition of the word "series".
Fixed  It was there already but I clarified saying it was animated in the first paragraph of Conception. 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment So use different words like show or the name itself from time to time? 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that it would help to add some variety. I would suggest using show or Steven Universe to break this up, but I will leave it at your discretion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I would avoid the following sentence construction whenever possible, (with X verb-ing). It is something often brought up in the context of FAC reviews, so it is best to just revise those instances out now. An example of it is the following, with storyboard artists not only drawing scenes but also writing dialogue and shaping the narrative.
Fixed 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Here is another instance, with a number of events needing to be "fleshed out" for production. I find it helpful to look for "with" in the article to check if this is used elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I would link Delaware in the lead, particularly for international readers who may have never heard of the state. I think that it is always good to be mindful of that of stuff when it comes to linking.
Done 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
From what I remember about the series, I really loved it, and although it warms my heart to read about all the praise given to a LGBT show like this one, it did leave me wondering if there was any negative reviews or criticism for it? I know that for instance, when I first recommended this show, people said that it started off very child-like, which could make it difficult for some viewers to engage with or watch beyond those initial episodes.
I’ve seen different perspectives, but nothing I can cite to as it’s usually from social media. 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. It could be a case where the coverage just skews more positive. I have seen it happen for other shows before. Thank you for checking into this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
This is not required, but I also find it helpful to put the year that a photo was taken in the caption. I think that it provides context to readers, like noting that the photo of Rebecca Sugar was taken in 2014.
I agree with the one in the Writing section giving the context, not sure about the others. 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I use it primarily for images of people or places, but I know that it is not something required or that a lot of editors do. I just wanted to raise this to your attention as an idea to consider, but of course, feel free to disagree with it.
I could see some editors ask for sources for the "Synopsis" section. I know that the series is used as the source for that, and it is not necessary to source these kinds of things, but it is good to keep in mind for a future FAC.
They would need a good reason for it as IMO it just creates extra work to cite every episode in the section. 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a super random thing that caught my eye, but I am uncertain if this part much later in the article, she told an interviewer, is necessary. The focus is more on the quote, and I do not think it adds much to clarify that this is said in an interview, especially if the interviewer and/or the publication is not mentioned. To be more concise, I would cut it.
Some parts of the "Other media" section are presented as bullet points. I think that it may be better to present that as paragraphs instead. I have not seen bullet points like this in a FAC, but I have not really worked on things of this scale before so it may be worth looking into similar topics that are already a FAC to see if that is done there.
Don’t know if you remember, but the Naruto article had the same thing, and that was Mike Christie's idea. 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my mention. I would trust Mike over me, as he is honestly a better and more experienced editor than myself. That actually does answer the question that I have about this as I was curious if this structure was used before. Apologies for forgetting that it was done for the Naruto article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The WP:FUR for File:Pearl and Rose embracing in Steven Universe.jpg is incomplete.
Fixed 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not think a paragraph for the Lil Nas X bit in the "Influence and legacy" section is necessary. Based on the prose, it seems more about the interviewer. It is unclear if Lil Nas X was really inspired by the series. For instance, there is no follow-up on if those outfits were made. In contrast to the part on Janelle Monáe, this part just does not really seem to be added much in general, but having it as a separate paragraph gives it, in my opinion, undue weight.
@Historyday01: Any reason why it should stay? It was removed before then you re-added it. 1989 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying, but I do think it serves as evidence of the show's influence. Here's the section, rewritten to focus on Lil Nas X instead. I had to look at the transcript again, as what I had written previously wasn't that accurate. So, I believe this is much better:
Rapper and singer Lil Nas X, responded to a GQ interviewer, in November 2021, who asked if he had watched the series and asserted that he looked like Yellow Diamond. He stated that he was going to commission someone to use the Diamonds' outfits and dress up like them and told the interviewer that Pink Diamond "did what she had to do." He also described the series as "next level" in comparison to Star Wars, which he called "decent." --Historyday01 (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I still disagree with how it is presented in the article. I do not have an issue with Lil Nax X being included, but I think that he is being given an undue amount of weight, particularly when his connection with the show is, in my opinion, rather tenuous. Again, the interviewer brought up the Steven Universe connection. Compared to Monae, it is unclear what impact the show had on him. I would make this part more concise. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I'm glad that you don't have an issue with Lil Nas X being included. I'll see what I can do. I do think it is notable to mention the series connection, on the other hand. Historyday01 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Update: I have reduced the mention of Lil Nas X to only one line in my recent edit.--Historyday01 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The prose for the "Influence and legacy" section could use a lot of work in general. Each paragraph starts with "In X time", which makes the prose read more like a listing than a more cohesive narrative. I have no doubts that this show has a lot of influence and legacy, but I think the prose could use more revision.
Do you think there is enough to break up the "Awards and nominations" table into its own list? I am also uncertain about presenting this information as just a list without any prose.
It’s not as long as Adventure Time, so probably not. I also figure including a prose would be redundant giving there's a list below with all the information. 1989 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
That is fair. I do not have a particularly strong opinion on it so I will leave it up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I hope that these comments are helpful. I focused primarily on the lead to start with, but near the end, I also brought in some random stuff that I noticed in the article. It will take me some time to work through this article, but I wanted to at least start with something. I hope that other editors help with this peer review, and it could be beneficial to reach out to WikiProjects and the like for that purpose. I hope you are having a great start to your 2025! Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this all together. In terms of the "Influence and legacy" section, as the person who wrote that, like many things I here, I probably didn't exactly know what I was doing and was doing it with little or no guidance, so that's why it looks the way it does. I did update the section a little bit with this edit, but surely more can be done. So if I have some more time this year, I'll take another crack at it again. As for the Awards and Nominations, I suppose they could be their own list, but other pages have them listed in the same article, so I was extrapolating from that it made sense to do the same here.Historyday01 (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I will definitely look more about the "Influence and legacy" section as I get more into the article. I think that this is a hard section to write in general, but it does have a lot of great information and sources already from what I can see. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, those sections usually are hard to write, for sure. I think there was something there a while ago, but for a series like this, it is good to have a robust "influence and legacy" section. Historyday01 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


##### Synopsis
I have collapsed my comments above to hopefully keep the peer review more manageable and to allow more space for other editors to participate. I have responded to some points above. Please let me know if you would like me to revert this change. I have collapsed the part on Lil Nas X, which is an unresolved point, as I will look at it and the "Influence and legacy" subsection as a whole when I get down to that part. I hope that this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this category, Television shows set in Delaware, accurate? Originally, the article said that it was set on the Delmarva Peninsula, with a citation about Delmarva being a separate state in this alternate Earth. I can understand why this detail and source was removed, but the category does not seem correct, as it is not really set in Delaware based on this info.
Removed 1989 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I have a question about this part, to incubate new Gems. Based on what I remember, doesn't this incubation process destroy the Earth? I am also uncertain what "sterilize" means in this context, to sterilize the planet Earth. My mind goes more so to sterilization (medicine), which I am guessing is not the intended meaning here.
Yes, it does. As for sterilize, it means to suck the planet dry until it’s nothing but a literal shell of itself. 1989 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Why not link other characters in the plot summary? The links are not just limited to characters with their own article as demonstrated by Rose Quartz. It would be helpful to provide a way for readers to get more info on certain characters.
Done 1989 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I would re-examine the prose for the final paragraph of the plot summary. It gets repetitive and falls into a pattern of saying "In X season, this happens" so it reads more like a listing of events rather than a cohesive narrative.
Done 1989 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I am curious on what qualifies as notable enough to mention in this plot summary. I understand that it should be brief and only cover the major points, but it does seem quite condensed in certain spots, particularly for the second paragraph. A lot of space is spent on the first season so it makes the other seasons seem rather rushed by comparison.
Steven and his Gem journey is the priority. I did some revising earlier. 1989 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. I have one more quick question about this. Is there a reason why White Diamond is not mentioned here? I was just curious since the other diamonds are mentioned. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Blue and Yellow are shown throughout the series, while White makes a first appearance towards the end of the show. 1989 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Revised She was the final piece of fixing the puzzle. 1989 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Here are some quick comments on the plot summary, along with one question about a category. I will get into the longer bits of the article over the weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@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)


##### Development
For this part, and the project was chosen for development. While developing her show, would it be possible to avoid the development/developing repetition? I tried to think of an idea for this, but I kept getting stuck.
Fixed 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
For the mention of The Powerpuff Girls CGI special, is it referencing The Powerpuff Girls: Dance Pantsed? If so, it may be better to provide a clearer link. Maybe something along the lines of a CGI special for The Powerpuff Girls.
Fixed 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I am uncertain of the chronology of the "Conception" subsection. The art presentation is introduced in the second paragraph as leading to the commission of the series and the subsequent paragraph is about events that took place after that, such the creation of the pilot episode, but then the last few paragraphs loop back to the things prior to the commission, including the art presentation. I found it a bit jarring. I was honestly uncertain what "the art presentation" was referencing in the final paragraph and had to go back to the start. I was curious on why it was structured this way?
Fixed 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that it would be best to put the image for Sugar and the image for Jones-Quartey together (with the multiple-image template) to avoid MOS:SANDWICH issues. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Done 1989 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Do we have any examples to further flesh this part out, he was painstaking in his attention to detail?
Fixed 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
For this part, Akira Toriyama's Dr. Slump, I would clarify if this is referencing the manga or the anime.
Fixed 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I would be mindful of quotes and attribution. A quote should be clearly attributed in the prose so readers will know who is saying what. For example, the following quote, "look alive", is not clearly attributed. I think that Jones-Quartey said this, but it is not immediately clear, at least in my opinion.
Fixed I rearranged the text. 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I am uncertain about this wording, to ride a roller coaster of family life, particularly as something that is presented in Wikipedia's voice as it seems too flowery.
Fixed 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Have you looked into any scholarly coverage on this show's treatment of colonialism? I have found these two sources (Off-Color, Off-Center: Decolonizing (in) Steven Universe and Not Just Boys and Toys) on Google Scholar so I was wondering if this was a larger point of discussion that warranted inclusion. Apologies if this is already included in the article and I had just missed it.
I have the whole PDF book of the first link, haven’t read it yet. Saved the second one. 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Here are two sources (Steven Universe is the most delightful, sex-positive show on television and What a children’s show can teach us about sex and healthy relationships) that may be useful. Feel free to not use them though as this article will obviously not include every source that has discussed this show.
Will look at later. 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I remember that "Cry for Help" and its aftermath being heavily discussed for its handling of consent. Is that notable enough to include in the article?
I have given this some additional thought, and it may be better to limit this to the article on the episode, but I will still leave this comment up to get your feedback on it as again, you know this show and its coverage far more than I do. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The episode isn’t really referenced much when seeing discussions of the show, so I'm not sure. 1989 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. I would not force it then. It is likely best to reserve that for the article on the episode then. I was initially curious about this as I remember this being a big deal when I was watching the show, but it may have just been one of those things that was overshadowed by other storylines, which is why I left the response saying that I would understand if it would not fit or be appropriate here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Here are some comments that mostly focus on the "Development" section. Near the end, I had some questions about other topics. Apologies if I am posting too much on here. I am just trying to help to the best of my ability. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The more feedback, the better. It’s much appreciated. 1989 (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Just making sure. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


##### Production
For this part, Eventually, Sugar created a chart with taped printouts about a 2,000-year Gem and Earth history, could you more clearly clarify when Sugar made this chart, as "eventually" is in my opinion too vague.
I would be mindful of unnecessary repetition. This part is an example, The writers—Levin and Burnett—would write, with the repetition of "writers" and "write".  Other instances of this are the writers played writing games and the other writers wrote a song for an episode.
I would link Burbank as some readers may be unfamiliar with that location in general. I would also say that it is worthwhile to link things like demo and take that may not be as immediately recognizable to people outside of those industries.
For this part, For his audition, Callison spoke ten lines of dialogue from the pilot and sang the theme song while being recorded, I do not think that the "while being recorded" part is necessary. It is quite common for auditions to be recorded, and unless this recording process had any significant meaning, it can be safely removed without losing any information.
I am a little confused by the recording process. This part, they would often record multiple episodes, makes it seem that it was normal for multiple episodes to be recorded at a time, but this is seemingly contradicted by the very next sentence, which seemingly says each recording session focused on one episode at a time: Each recording session covered a new episode and included retakes for that episode or previous ones if needed. Could you clarify this for me?
For this part, features songs and musical numbers produced by Sugar and her writers, who collaborated on each song's lyrics, I would just say on the lyrics to avoid the repetition of "song" twice in the same sentence.
Stevonnie is brought up in the "Music" subsection, but since the character was not introduced up until this point, I could see readers unfamiliar with the series being confused. I have the same comment for White Diamond's mention later in the article. It would be helpful to link these characters on their first mention and to provide some sort of descriptor to help unfamiliar readers. Stevonnie is given a descriptor later, but the character is first mentioned here without that.
This is in the next section, but I still wanted to bring this up anyway. This part, As a coming-of-age series, the theme of family, is grammatically incorrect as it is saying that "the theme of family" is "a coming-of-age series", which is obviously not the case. I would be mindful of that in other areas as well. I have not seen other instances, but it is good to be aware.
I hope these comments are helpful. Have a great start to your new week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, right back at ya! The issues above were fixed. 1989 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


##### Themes
It is unclear who is saying this quote "hues of skin in a colorful sci-fi magic display of diversity" so I would more clearly attribute it in the prose. I have a similar comment for this quote "love affair between fantasy and reality".
I would be mindful of using a similar sentence structure or wording in close proximity to each other as it can make the prose repetitive. For instance, these parts, According to Kat Morris, the series' central and According to Burnett, the writers and is intentional according to Sugar, all use the "according to" wording, and since they are all relatively close to each other, it is noticeable, at least to me.
For the second paragraph of the "Initial concept" subsection, the first sentence seems a tad long and a bit of a run-on. I wonder if it would be helpful to break this sentence up into two, particularly as it is covering a lot of information?
I would be mindful about over-quoting. I have a tendency to rely on quotes too much, and I get this note in my reviews, but I would paraphrase when possible. I notice there are a lot of quotes in these two subsections for instance, and I think that the one-word quotes in particular may benefit from paraphrasing. That being said, it is important to be mindful of this in general.
For this quote "confirmed that the characters were LGBTQIA+, it might lead to the show's cancellation.", the period should put on the outside of the quotation mark as this is not quoting a complete sentence.
Here are some further comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

All issues except four are resolved. The whole LGBTQ section needs to be reworked, I’ll get to that soon.  1989 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. These kinds of sections are always a pain to write, but you have a lot of solid information and sources so there is a solid foundation there. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


##### Broadcast
Is "half-hours" a standard term for television? I have not run into it myself, but I am just be unfamiliar with this.
I changed it, not sure why it was there. 1989 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I am uncertain about the placement of this sentence, Finally, in 2016, following the decision to end the series, Sugar petitioned Cartoon Network to extend the fifth season by three extra half-hours to wrap up the story, making it 16 half-hours total., as it comes before the article discusses the show's cancellation. I understand why it is placed here, but it is a bit jarring as it does not really fit chronologically.
I changed the wording of the sentence. 1989 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised by this part, former series producer Ian Jones-Quartey, as I was unaware that he was no longer part of the series. Is there any further information about this?
He resigned from the show to focus on OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes, similar to Sugar leaving Adventure Time. 1989 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
My issue is that this is not introduced until later in the article, so it is rather jarring and confusing to casually mention this here only to put the full context later. I had the same issue with how Stevonnie is mentioned in one section, only to be more properly introduced in a later section. I can get that some readers may not read these articles top-to-bottom and they jump around to certain sections, but I would avoid naming something like this only to get into more detail in a completely different section. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
In the last bulletpoint of this example, it’s stated if you are talking about events in a certain time, that it’d be incorrect to say their role in past tense. By the time it says former, it’s in 2018, which is when Ian wasn’t there anymore. 1989 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure how that is relevant to my point. I am not saying that you should talk about him like he still was a producer of the show at the time. What I am saying is that it was surprising to read that he was no longer a part of the show, as up until this point, nothing had been said otherwise. Why not move the OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes from the "Influence and legacy" subsection up here? It would be better to be clear on the first instance something is said rather than drop something like this only to explain the context at a later point in the article. I do not see a clear reason why this cannot be better introduced here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I was not aware of that being mentioned in another section, as I did not write that. Revised. 1989 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Was there any rationale given for the show's cancellation?
I think the user who read the Polygon article cited interpreted it as that after these quotes, around 2016, I was told […] we would not be picked up for more episodes and I was told there wouldn’t be more [episodes]. I imagine executives didn’t want to outright cancel the show due to potential backlash, so they were willing to deal with Sugar to wrap up the series ASAP. 1989 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. I had always attributed to Cartoon Network mishandling this series, as well as others, to seemingly prioritize Teen Titans Go!, but I am sure there is more nuance there. Obviously that is just my opinion and from the little that I have read online before this peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


##### Other media
I would link White Diamond here as this is the only spot where she is mentioned in the article.
I believe the parts about Minecraft and Brawlhalla could be combined to avoid the repetition of "On X date" for two sentences in a row. I would suggest something along the lines of: In 219, Minecraft released a Mash-Up Pack based on Steven Universe, and  Brawlhalla, a free-to-play fighting game, added characters from the series.
Both fixed. 1989 (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I did not notice anything major with either of these sections. I will likely take a moment to get through the "Reception" section as I want to make sure to thoroughly read through everything and to provide helpful and thoughtful comments about it. This section is, at least in my opinion, always the most difficult part of the article, even more so when it comes to a well-known series like this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


##### Reception
I wonder if the sentences about the IndieWire and GamesRadar+ listings could be combined as they are both making a list of the greatest animated shows. It would cut down on some of the repetition in this paragraph, and since neither of these two have any specific details, they could safely be combined together without losing anything, at least in my opinion.
I am interested in the "flagship series" quote from The A.V. Club. To be clear, I think that it is quoted and contextualized well, but I am curious on if any other sources discuss Steven Universe in this way. The A.V. Club is making this claim by using data from a specific month and a specific year, which again is well-represented in the article, but I would like to know if any other citations discussed Steven Universe and its significance to Cartoon Network as a whole.
As I have said above, I would be very mindful of using quotes too much. I have a tendency to do that as well, but when it gets to the point that every sentence in a paragraph has a quote, it is time to step back and see what can be paraphrased. I would also recommend that you look at WP:RECEPTION as it is a wonderful essay and resources on how to write a reception section, which I find are incredibly difficult, particularly if you want to take the article through the FAC process.
This part, "Stronger Than You" has been referred to as a "power ballad", seems out of place in the "Critical response" subsection as describing something as a power ballad is not a critique, but more of a description. For later on in the same sentence, I would attribute who is saying this, the end credits song, "Love Like You", has been called "gutting" and an accurate depiction of the meaning of love, as it is unclear. It is important to keep clear attribution in mind. I have the same comment for parts like The narration of a complex story from a child's perspective means its exposition remains "artfully restrained, growing in ambition with the series" and Steven's character and Steven Universe's measured pace allows its characters to become "more complex and interesting than most of their counterparts on prestige dramas", developing "as real people and not entities serving narrative functions"., which do not provide clear attribution in the prose for the quotes.
A lot of the "Style and themes" subsection seems less like critical reception and more like analysis, and I think that it would fit better in the "Themes" section. I have a similar perspective about the "Characters" subsection that has parts that may be better suited to discuss the show's impact and legacy.
This overall section has a lot of great information and resources, but I do think the prose needs the most work in comparison to the rest of the article. I am noticing small things like linking The Legend of Korra multiple times and introducing it as a Nickelodeon show on its second link for some reason to recurring things like quotes not being attributed in the prose, with "one of the most unabashedly queer shows on TV" as another example of this.
For File:NYCC 2014 - Opal (15508336931).jpg, I would add a descriptor in the caption as this is the first and only time that Opal is discussed in the article. Also, is there any reason for choosing this image as opposed to a cosplay image about a character who has already been discussed in the prose, like one for Peridot or one for Lapis Lazuli?
For the "Influence and legacy" subsection, I think that it may be best to try and organize paragraphs by theme to make a more cohesive narrative. Again, you have a lot of great information to use, but I think it can be organized and presented better.
I would also encourage you to look through the citations to make sure that all of the information is represented accurately. I have noticed some areas where the author was not included, but I have seen some citations, like this one, where the title in the source does not match what is said in the article.
I hope that these comments are helpful. I think that this section could use the most work. I would recommend reaching out to other editors to see if they could provide further feedback, specifically on this, but also on the article as a whole. You have already brought up Mike Christie earlier, and he would be a great person to ask about this. He is very knowledgeable about writing these sections (and to be blunt, is a far better reviewer than I am). I think that I will end my review here. You have done a lot of great work on this article, and I look forward to seeing how it continues to improve in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


#### BP!
Since you've mentioned that you're working on this article. I'll just gonna drop a few comments

There are several websites that aren't linked yet in citations
ref 53 Reddit is unreliable.
ref 70 and 217, change publisher to website so that it will be italicized
ref 64, 65, 213, 231, and 237 FAC source reviewers will most likely question you if these sources are reliable.  🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
As for point #2, you make a good point about Reddit and a better source should be added there. I also found an alternative link which could be used for ref #30, related to the line segment reading "supporting characters Lars and Sadie were originally created when she was in college":
I found an article in Rolling Stone which says the same, noting "That she created Lars and Sadie, two of the show’s more popular human characters, when she was in college and added them to Beach City." It may also be worth noting that Sadie's name is a reference to Jules Feiffer's A Barrel of Laughs, a Vale of Tears, with Sugar telling Polygon: "And the other super direct reference to that book is that there’s a character in it called plain Sadie, and that’s where Sadie’s name comes from."
Otherwise, I think part of this interview she did with CBR (part of this interview) could be of note, perhaps in the paragraph beginning with "Sugar wanted the Gems":
...I don't consider Peridot or any of the Gems on the show for that matter, to be neurotypical --that is to say, most Gems don't think, perceive or behave in ways considered to be 'normal' by the general population, so I think it makes perfect sense that Peridot would be relatable to neurodiverse and autistic members of our audience. Sugar added, "As a non-binary, bisexual person, I often felt growing up like an alien surrounded by 'real' people, never trusting myself to say the right thing or behave 'correctly.' I wanted the Gems to be a reflection of that feeling, and hoped they would each be relatable not only to people with my exact experience but to a variety of experiences of being made to feel 'other.' I wanted to create a show where those were the characters the audience would be rooting for -- rooting for them to be free to express themselves in their truest way, and rooting for them to learn and grow at whatever pace they need. I am thrilled that autistic individuals relate to Peridot and hope that they’ve enjoyed the show.
As for point #3, you are right, that the publisher field should be changed to website, while for point #4, Nerd Reactor (ref 64), Voice Acting Mastery (ref 65), The Geekiary (ref 213), Behind the Voice Actors (refs 231 and 237), could all be replaced by stronger sources. Historyday01 (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
also btw, at annecy they announced a new su spinoff entitled lars of the stars, and btw why hasnt it got a article yet. https://variety.com/2025/tv/global/steven-universe-lars-of-the-stars-annecy-teen-titans-go-1236427960/ 167.248.155.106 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)