Talk:Frozen (franchise)

Club Penguin's Frozen Party

The Disney-owned property Club Penguin had a Frozen Party as cross-promotion between the 2 franchises. Might be worth mentioning:--Coin945 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Disney Club Penguin is bringing the magic of Disney’s Frozen to Club Penguin Island now through September 3." "Disney is continuing to expand its interactive mobile biz by bringing the hit property Frozen to its Club Penguin virtual world." "Disney Club Penguin virtual world is now hosting a Frozen Party." "You’d have thought Frozen would have arrived in Disney Club Penguin back in March 2014, when the movie was released on DVD and Blu-ray. On the plus side, this does have the advantage of keeping it relevant". "Frozen Party is predicted to be the most successful Club Penguin takeover to date." "From August 21st to September 3rd, kids and members will also be able to visit popular scenes from the movie as well as hear songs from the film. Kid Screen reports that Club Penguin’s Frozen-themed party will be the first event available on the interactive mobile app since it launched in May last year." "Once members complete the snowflake quest, they will earn the ability to transform into Olaf or Marshmallow and freeze objects around the island." "Frozen Party is available on desktop, iOS and Android versions of the game." "The players can also use freeze party rooms".

Here’s a list what Disney Club Penguin players can do, either in the app or on the website, during the Frozen Party.

• Collect Elsa’s snowflakes to unlock Olaf and Marshmallow transformations.
• Olaf and Marshmallow transformations allow players to freeze items.
• Members can get Anna, Elsa, Kristoff, Olaf, and Sven costumes for penguins.
• Snowman Puffles can be created.
• Ice Palace-themed igloos will be available to decorate.
• Elsa’s Ice Palace igloo will appear in the game, and “Let It Go” will be played inside of it.

References

Everything regarding video game adaptations of Frozen should be mentioned in the article. Be bold, edit and contribute to the article.TurokSwe (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Frozen wedding dress

• http://www.etonline.com/news/151262_disney_is_releasing_a_frozen_wedding_dress/index.html

The following contents are part of the Frozen-franchise, do not remove

The following contents have been removed by certain users without any real support as to why. The contents feature or heavily feature contents from Frozen and are undoubtedly part of the franchise and should not be removed, that would be ignoring a big part and history of the franchise. This shouldn't even be an issue. The contents in question are below.

Television:

• Once Upon a Time (Season 4
• "There's No Place Like Home") (2013-2015)

Games/apps:

• Disney Infinity (2013)
• Disney Hidden Worlds (2013)
• Club Penguin (2013)
• Disney Infinity: Marvel Super Heroes (2014)
• Fantasia: Music Evolved (2014)
• Disney Movies Anywhere (2014)
• Disney Inquizitive (2015)

TurokSwe (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Issues with some of User:TurokSwe's edits

Please keep in mind WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

The following edits are problematic under longstanding Wikipedia policy:

• Listing random one-off references to Frozen such as television commercials, cameos, and parodies. (Once Upon A Time is different as that was an actual story arc.)
• Listing all the video game and book titles, most of which do not qualify under Wikipedia:Notability.

A separate issue is the lack of proper citations. Please cite sources with the citation tags or in a standard format like Turabian. It only takes a minute or two to obtain the necessary information (namely, the names of the author, article, publisher, and publication). Content that is not properly supported is more likely to be deleted in the long run, especially if link rot kills off the pages cited and it is impossible to trace bare URLs otherwise (because no other citation information was provided in the first place). --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To follow up on this: If I don't see a good reason within two weeks as to why those kinds of matters should stay in the article soon, I'm going to take all that out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention that Wikipedia is not a video game guide. The material about what can be done in Disney Club Penguin has to go too. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, not seeing any response. Here goes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this... I was a bit concerned about getting into a content dispute unnecessarily. Quick question: Is there a reason you held off on cutting back on the infobox? Regards. —zziccardi (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the material should stay removed, I realize that it was extremely incoherent. TurokSwe (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

New issues. TurokSwe restored the following problematic content on 23 February 2015: (1) a reference to a Sky Movies commercial; (2) a Sky Movies Special; (3) a reference to It's a Small World: The Animated Series, and (4) an "obligatory Frozen reference" on the Simpsons.

These are problematic for a number of reasons. First, they clearly violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No original research---that is, they are non-notable trivia more appropriate for a personal blog. For example, there are thousands of Hidden Mickeys in existence (including the one in Frozen itself) but as they are not individually notable, we do not maintain a list of them on Wikipedia. Second, the citations are improper, as already noted above. Any objections before I take them out? --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing the content in question for the reasons you've stated; I also believe the infobox should be toned down a bit, as I previously suggested. —zziccardi (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is much more proper and more appreciated when specific reasons as to the contents removal are provided instead of just posting random links to articles which delves into several issues (that includes specific references to specific sections in the linked articles that are of relevance to the discussion). Personally, I consider these to be worthy of a mentioning. As for the info-box, it is perfectly fine and is not in need of any change other than potential additions of relevant contents. — TurokSwe (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, the following sections were violated: (1) "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion", especially "Advertising, marketing or public relations"; (2) "Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site" especially "Personal web pages", and (3) "Wikipedia is not a directory", especially "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics," "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business," and "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations." (The last one is why the Simpsons reference is particularly inappropriate.)

Also, I misspoke earlier when I referred to Wikipedia:No original research; the real issue is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your citations are missing huge amounts of information that should only take five to ten minutes to locate, and are barely a step above naked links. As the editor inserting those assertions, it is your burden to assemble your citations. No one can read your mind and guess what you were trying to cite.

Furthermore, you are citing video clips directly without minute/second timestamps, which makes it nearly impossible for other editors to verify your assertions because no one has the time to watch entire clips. If you have the time to add those citations, you certainly have the time to write down the timestamps (like what I did when I added citations to videos like the Lopezes' "making of" presentation at Williams College in the general Frozen article).

Let's put it this way. If you were writing an essay for a teacher at school or a supervisor at work on the Frozen phenomenon, would you really write stuff like that? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"How" were sections number (1), (2), and (3) violated? You need to evaluate that aswell.

So, you want more references than the ones I've already provided? Sure, I can do that if you demand it, but it ain't no problem looking all of these up yourself you know, they're extremely easily verified.

True!

I would probably add it as a bit of notable trivia to further demonstrate how far this phenomenon stretches. — TurokSwe (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. If you don't engage the issues in good faith then it's awfully hard to assume you're acting in good faith.

I said you need to fill out your references properly. Neither I nor anyone else has hours and hours to do your homework for you. It's your problem. Not anyone else's. At a minimum, you need to be taking the five to ten minutes necessary to trace and fill in most of those fields (author, title, publisher, location, and so on). Some editors don't always do it right but everyone appreciates that they try. If you are too lazy to type up decent references, you risk seeing your edits being summarily reverted on sight.

Something like 25 to 50% of links are dead within a year. Properly citing your sources means that at a minimum, one can always dig up the source in a database or on hard copy even if the corresponding Web page is dead and wasn't archived by the Internet Archive.

Moving on. First. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Means you can't promote Frozen just because you or any else likes it.

Second. Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. The above-noted edits are random tangents that belong on a personal blog and are wholly unsuitable for the neutral and formal tone of writing on Wikipedia. (See WP:NPOV.)

Third. Wikipedia is not a directory. Meaning it's not a place for lists of totally random non-notable crap. Which is what the above items happen to be. Disney Wikia and TV Tropes happily host stuff like that; Wikipedia does not. Try looking at Wikipedia peer reviews and featured article reviews. Notice how such tangents are mercilessly pruned, based on longstanding Wikipedia policy.

The key criterion as I've already noted above is that the main parts of the media franchise actually have Frozen as a central element of such works (not just a cameo) and are notable for that or are notable in their own right (i.e., meta-works like Disney Infinity). Cameos are almost always never notable on Wikipedia unless they are deliberately designed to be extremely shocking or grossly inappropriate (the ones you've cited are not). --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not seeing any response on this and I'm not seeing any improvement in the quality of the citations. Time to clean things up. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The article now flows heaps better

And gives a better understanding to how the franchise has evolved over time. While still not perfect, and very cumbersome, Frozen (franchise) is at least inching closer to striking the perfect balance between comprehensive and easy-to-follow.--Coin945 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the overall reorganization you are trying to accomplish makes sense, but I need to point out that (1) it would have really been nice if you had warned other editors what you are about to do and (2) you kind of created a huge mess with respect to continuity issues. Unfortunately, I am too busy with my caseload to spend right now the two hours it would take to trace and fix the 20 or so hanging mentions and references. For starters, Bob Iger was formerly introduced at the start of the article and now he is introduced at the end, which makes no sense since he is now quoted before that point.

Also, I don't think the merchandise deserves an article of its own yet. By way of comparison, we don't even have an article on merchandise for Mickey Mouse, which has been around far longer. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to fix the obvious issue with Iger, but I am still irritated that you didn't have the decency to apologize or at least pitch in and help fix the continuity issues you created, which I estimate will take at least six months to fix because no one, myself included, has the time to do a comprehensive analysis and fix the mess you created.

In the future, you really should be more considerate. Please keep in mind that this is a consensus-driven encyclopedia. You want the consensus to be with you, not against you. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar:, I was not pinged into this discussion, so had no idea you replied until just now. As of this sentence I have just read your message and will point out that some of the "mess" in the article was actually created by user @Jason Chak: and not me (so please check the edit history to ensure you're frustrated at the correct person). I went for the bold, revert, discuss philosophy, so you or somebody else may of course revert all my edits if they are as detrimental as bad as you make them seem. Please understand that I am only trying to help, so please assume good faith and understand I only read your comments just now.--Coin945 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the article, I have started to pick up upon some of those continuity issues you mentioned (things being mentioned higher up in the article than formally introduced). I'll leave it to you to decide whether to revert my edits or keep the chronologically logical order of the article (with each heading progressing from 2013 to 2014 to 2015 to TBA, and the subheadings ordered in a similar fashion under each heading) while fixing those errors.Coin945 (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Awards galore! (and more)

1. Some merchandise-related awards http://www.awn.com/news/disney-s-frozen-tops-2015-licensing-expo-awards
2. Frozen FANdemonium: A Musical Celebration! - a musical journey through frozen. I think it will be like the Proms. http://www.comingsoon.net/extras/news/449863-d23-expo-to-host-frozen-fandemonium-a-musical-celebration#/slide/1
3. Frozen Fever will be released as part of a special series of shorts to be released on DVD. (many of these were shunted to the side when the company favoured d2v sequels and... chicken little, so this is def noteworthy. http://www.comingsoon.net/extras/news/449863-d23-expo-to-host-frozen-fandemonium-a-musical-celebration#/slide/1
4. Playmation system? Sort of a half game half real life experience... http://www.newsarama.com/24712-disney-unveils-playmation-game-system.html

@Coolcaesar:, thoughts? --Coin945 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy of running these points by me first.

I already cited the LIMA awards to a reliable source. Not sure if the others are notable. Since winning their Oscars, the Lopezes have been delivering presentations and interviews all over the place about how they did it (e.g., the Williams College and Young Actors' Theatre Camp presentations and BMI interview which are all on YouTube). The Frozen FANdemonium will likely be a similar program but with Montan's perspective as the music producer from the other end of the videoconference. (Regardless, I am still going to try to rebook my D23 Expo ticket from one day to two or three days to catch it.)

The third one should be added to the Frozen Fever article.

The Playmation system isn't that notable, it's not a true video game as far as I can tell but more of an augmented reality experience. I don't see it as more remarkable than any of the Frozen toys. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good--Coin945 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Franchisey sources (some of these may already be the article, but yeah)

I remember when this article started, it was a spin-off of the Frozen film article and there were doubts about if the property could be considered a franchise at that time, if at all. I did some GoogleNews scouting just now and the answer is a definitive yes. Theres some great content in here about the future of the franchise, and how Disney is coping with this multimedia juggernaut. Just dumping these in here for now.--Coin945 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.thestreet.com/story/12943710/1/disneys-frozen-will-become-the-biggest-franchise-ever.html
2. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-frozen-disney-20150305-story.html#page=1
3. http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2015/02/03/frozen-frenzy-marketing-lessons-disneys-unstoppable-franchise
4. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/02/04/disney_q1_2015_earnings_the_frozen_sales_magic_shows_no_signs_of_freezing.html
5. http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/11/frozen_beats_barbie_holiday_toys.html
6. http://www.thestreet.com/story/13078626/1/disneys-frozen-2-will-easily-outperform-all-other-sequels.html
7. http://seekingalpha.com/article/2528805-disneys-frozen-deal-with-hasbro-strengthens-franchise-sets-up-likely-sequel
8. https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/s/disney-reveal-five-frozen-franchise-plan-134300913.html
9. http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2014/09/04/disney-depth-reviewing-story-frozen-franchise-future
10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hill/ready-to-let-go-of-let-it_b_5604502.html
11. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/10/frozen_characters_on_once_upon_a_time_how_disney_is_making_the_most_of_elsa.html
12. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/seized-fake-disney-toys-costumes-4718922
13. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150316/RETAIL_APPAREL/150319885/toy-stores-give-frozen-2-an-icy-reception
14. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hill/disney-looks-to-avoid-the_b_5835170.html (can be used for The Little Mermaid (Disney franchise) too)
15. http://fortune.com/2014/12/22/do-you-wanna-build-an-empire/
16. http://www.bdlive.co.za/world/europe/2015/06/09/how-disney-milks-its-hits-for-profits-ever-after
17. http://www.forbes.com/sites/willburns/2015/06/09/disney-proves-that-profitable-marketing-is-about-brand-stories/
18. http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/secret-to-disneys-record-profits-franchises-113996.html
19. http://www.wsj.com/video/disneys-franchise-strategy-for-success/723B10CC-4844-4704-AF0D-B475AE56E313.html
20. http://www.pressherald.com/2014/06/05/frozen-franchise-moving-beyond-hot-for-disney-its-a-total-frenzy/
21. http://www.slashfilm.com/disney-frozen-franchise-marvel/
22. http://www.crushable.com/2014/01/23/entertainment/disney-frozen-franchise-ideas-sequel-sing-along/
23. http://www.cxnetwork.com/infographic-customer-experience-lessons-from-disney-frozen
24. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/frozen-producer-talks-franchise-rumors-692198
25. http://www.playbill.com/news/article/disney-files-infringement-lawsuit-against-phase-4-for-imitating-frozen-fran-213173
26. http://www.etonline.com/movies/161211_9_things_that_absolutely_need_to_be_the_frozen_sequel_or_we_ll_plunge_disney_into_deep_deep_deep_snow/

Good start, but some of these appear to be personal blogs without a deep editorial pipeline and hence run afoul of WP:RS. I'm concerned about CartoonBrew, Seeking Alpha, Geeks of Doom, Yahoo Contributor Network, and Forbes Contributors. A contractual right to clawback bad content (in the case of Yahoo and Forbes) is no substitute for a real editorial pipeline, because that clawback right is likely to be exercised only in situations involving horribly inappropriate content (as opposed to merely somewhat inaccurate content). If you're ever written for publication for pay, you will soon find yourself thinking and writing a lot differently, knowing that every word choice you make will be criticized by an editor before they green-light the article for publication, than if you were writing for your own personal Web site or personal blog. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Baby names

Not sure if this has already been included, but here is a source taht demonstrates the out of fashion name "Elsa" has become relativrly popular again due to Frozen fans naming their newborns after the princess. (I winder if this happened with "Belle", Ariel", or "Jasmine". http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/more-babies-named-elsa-thanks-to-disney-blockbuster-frozen-20150719-gify6q.html

It's already mentioned under the film itself as an example of its cultural impact. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Disney Summer Festival (Israel)

Is this noteworthy? It was also focused on Cars, but mostly on Frozen. I don't want to add anything too obscure, minor or trivial, so please tell me if it deserves a mention. Lior (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frozen (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150126161900/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-17/disney-s-frozen-breaks-ticket-sale-record-in-ice-show to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-17/disney-s-frozen-breaks-ticket-sale-record-in-ice-show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disney Wikia info

Release date of Frozen 2: According to Disney Wiki, this movie is announced that it will be released in 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.126.22 (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC) --75.172.126.22 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

Disney Wikia is a fan site edited by anonymous people and does not do any fact checking - in other words we ignore what they say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, not utterly ignore it, just not rely on it. I take a "trust but verify" approach to anything there. Ranze (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Northern Nights

So I was searching 'Lego' stuff on my TV guide and Lego Frozen Northern Nights is listed as a series, although only one episode Race to Lookout Point is listed, saying original air dated 09-DEC-16. It is scheduled to air on Disney Junior (Canada) on 8:30am/6:00pm EST December 24 and 12:00am/8:55am/12:00pm/5:40pm/6:25pm EST December 25. It's too early right now

Per Frozen_(franchise)#Brand_extension we have December 9th listed as the shorts compilation debut. Do we have the names of these 4 shorts anywere? Was one of them RTLP?

You can see some sites are already documenting this like zap2it: http://archive.is/QTeEM and HelloGiggles: http://archive.is/kot2y

Even if the 'Nights' version is a typo for 'Lights' I think we should list it as an alternate title since it's showing up on TV guides consistently like this. For now I'm going to cite these 2 to make a note of it because www.disneyjunior.ca/schedule only books a week ahead so I'd need to wait another week to take a snapshot to check there. Ranze (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Wreck-It Ralph is not a part of this franchise

Two characters may have a minor appearance as cameos in the new Wreck-It Ralph movie that is still in development. This is more of a crossover, not an extension to this franchise. There is nothing else in common. Wreck-It Ralph is its own franchise. The other show has nothing do do with this story, none of the principal actors and crew, except for two characters, show up in the other story. It is not marketed as part of this franchise. At most that is trivia that deserves no more than a small mention, if even that. It definitely does not justify adding a bunch of extra columns to a cast table that is already fairly busy that just details two people, for a film that is part of some other franchise, that is still in development and not even real yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Television series

I was wondering. Will it spawn a television series by Disney Television Animation, like Tangled and Big Hero 6, because of the film's popularity? Would Bell, Menzel, Gad, and Groff reprise their roles? Keylonrocks7356 (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:ElsaAnnaFrozen.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: Copyvios of Mw The Walt Disney Company's character Elsa. Category:Elsa (Disney) too, once empty. 
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

Proposing major revisions to this article in two or three months

I propose in two or three months to transfer a lot of the coverage of sequel development into the article on Frozen II. I will then revise the sections on Frozen and Frozen II in this article so that they only tersely summarize the directors, producer, and film content, as with the other Disney franchise articles. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frozen (franchise)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Quick review this time → quick fail per WP:GAFAIL -- "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria [and] it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid." Here's some more detail:

• You, the nominator (@Glacier Editor), have not made a single edit to this article. Now that's not why I'm failing it but I wanted to point that out.
• For one, the lead can be expanded to at least 3 paragraphs since it's a big franchise.
• #History has a valid expansion banner that should be fixed.
• A lot of sections/paragraphs have unsourced content.
• The image in #Activities needs a caption (small detail).
• #Parades is just "On [date], [event]", failing WP:TRAILER.
• Most of #Events_and_celebrations lacks sources.
• Citations are kinda wack (a lot of WP:BARELINKS don't pass GA).
• ...and most importantly, a lot of sources are unreliable.

TheStreet.com, New York Post, PR Newswire to name a few

Overall, this article needs a lot of work/expansion to make it acceptable for GA so I'm quick-failing it for now. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)