Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed, Edd n Eddy/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:29, 13 July 2012 [1].

Ed, Edd n Eddy

edit

Ed, Edd n Eddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have brought the article to GA, and after some more work, it is finally ready for FA. Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - leaning to Oppose

  • Lead
  • "He shopped it to Nickelodeon..." what does that mean?
    • A normal word, check comments by Jpace - "try to sell it." --Khanassassin ☪ 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why cant you say "try to sell it"? This term says it all and will not leave the reader asking "what does that mean?" (like me) -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • "Was popular among kids"... I would say children. --Khanassassin ☪ 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • "and is considered to be one of Cartoon Network's best works." by who?
    • Well, it is by viewers considered to be "a Cartoon Network" classic, but I guess it should be removed since it doesn't have a source. Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leads don't generally have references, so you needn't have deleted it altogether. Just an elaboration on who considers it to be "Cartoon Network's best works". It would obviously need to be referenced within the body, but if you say this doesn't exist, then perhaps best to leave out. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

  • No references.
    • As Jpcase stated below, the "Overview" section should be taken as a plot section, which does not require references: it's sourcing the work itself, as seen in many film/book/video game "GAs" and "FAs." --Khanassassin ☪ 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't really review T.V or film articles so this was foreign to me. I have checked and your right. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "Feeling pigeon-holed..." sounds a bit WP:EUPHEMISM
    • Oops, sorry, that shouldn't actually be there. LOL. Done.
  • "A deal was ultimately made for Cartoon Network to pick up the show" - not sure "pick up the show" works.
    • It is a commonly used word, and there's really no great alternative...
  • If it is commonly used within an industry, I would consider this to be Jargon. Could you not say "Signed up" or "commissioned" or "bought the rights"? (only if they did of course). -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
  • A stray ] is lurking in the text.
  • Lacking in references. Could maybe do with at least another or maybe two?
    • More? Everything is referenced, why would you need more? --Khanassassin ☪ 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional works

  • You say "Fosters home for imaginary friends episode". If this is an episode then it shouldn't be in itals.
  • Crossover? Sorry what's that?
    • It is an often used word in telivision, as Jpcase stated below. If people really wouldn't understand it, I wiki-linked it, so Done.
  • If it's a commonly used word within an industry, I would consider it to be Jargon. The wiki-link has cured this. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the lead, I would change "kids" to children.
I would also split the reflist into two columns to reduce white space.
Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cassianto (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last paragraph of Production section. Be consistent with "re-runs". You format it "reruns" here. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I misread it. It looked similar to re-runs. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

  • Could you think of another word for voiced? Two or three are O.K but there are 9 here including "voices". Maybe "played the part of"?

We could make it clear from the first sentence that all parts are voiced, and then go onto list in prose format who played what part. See this or this as an example of I think what you should be trying to achieve. Alternatively, can I suggest making Cast a section and having the characters as sub-sections? That way, the character can be described and the actor/actress listed individually such as this. Looking around FA articles of similar subject, I do feel as if this part of the article is a little brief.

  • Sorry, but I think the second alternative... well, doesn't "suit" me. The characters should have their own article like they have now. I'll try to decrease the number of voiceds. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. There's 4 voices, and a few cast as and played the part of. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better. I agree with the separate character article's, but a FA should cover all aspects of the chosen subject. Again, have a look around at similar FA'S and you will find a brief description of some sort about the characters. The characters are an integral part of the series so a bit about them should be mentioned. My only concern is that the reader will want to divert from this by clicking on the character to read up on them when they needn't as all the information will be here to read. I'm sorry, I really must insist on at least a brief description about them.

-- Cassianto (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. But, I will leave the credits as the only source for the voice actors, since the information about the characters themselves is, again, "sourcing the work itself." --Khanassassin ☪ 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional works

  • Done.
  • OK; If it's still not Done, I'm blind.
  • Yes. All correct. -- Cassianto (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • Done
  • Tables

OK I generally like lists to be separate from prose articles and I would ordinarily suggest moving them out into an article of their own. However, there is no guideline around this and is purely a personal prefernce, so I'm happy to leave in situ. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Video Games

OK

I have taken care of the kids/children problem, the extra ], and the Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends episode problem. One of the sentences in the production section was referenced with the wrong source, however I have fixed that, and I am not sure why the section would need more references. Everything stated in the Production section is properly referenced.
To "shop" something means to try to sell it. This use of the word is usually in reference to creative works, as it is in this case. I do not know whether this is a completely formal use of the word or not, but it is a fairly common one. "Crossover" is also a commonly used word and even has its own Wikipedia page, seen here - Fictional crossover.
See comments. I was not familiar with this term and I think this could be simplified by saying "sell". -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Overview section is really just the article's plot section. I've been considering changing the title of the section, so that this point would be better understood, but there were other issues with the page that I wanted to focus on first. As I understand it, plot sections on Wikipedia pages do not require references, as they are referenced by the work itself. Everything stated in the Overview section is a clear fact that can be proven simply by viewing the television show. As such, it is my opinion that this section does not require references.--Jpcase (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a plot could you not call it as such? As I have stated above I tend not to review T.V or film articles, so this would be a first. I have checked and you are right that this seems to be the case. I have striked my comment. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be correct, since it isn't a plot. It's a section which is sourced by the work itself, similar to a plot, but it's not a plot. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
er...right :-/ Overview is fine then. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fixes - most of which have been addressed to my satisfaction. However, I am still leaning to Oppose on prose. Once the jargon issues have been addressed and the article has been proof read to ensure words and phrases like it have been eliminated, I would be happy to show my support. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "shopped it" and "picked it up" issues have been fixed. Crossover shouldn't be considered Jargon, since it's the official word - no real alternative. Like my comment above states, the "Overview" section is not a plot section, but should be treated similary. So, the issues are really fixed. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, however I haven't heard of it before. As I said the link fixed this so this is now OK. Please see a few other issues I have picked up on -- Cassianto (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All points have been addressed to my satisfaction. I am now willing to show my support in relation to this FAC.

-- Cassianto (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps not a problem here, but at a WP:FLC nomination, there was a strong oppose from one of the directors (Giants2008), with this edit with drastic concerns over copyvio. Just thought it was worth noting so this process could take extra special care in this regard. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure there is no copyvio here. On that article, I added the sources, lead, infobox, and the new sections about production, reception, DVD releases etc. But, the summaries were there before, and I didn't touch them. My fault. Not a problem here, I can assure you that. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, need to be done per comment above (and a quick reminder that done templates aren't meant to be used on FAC pages, per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes may deceive me, but I can't find any mention of Rolf in the "Voicing" subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please make sure all data tables comply with MOS:DTT which includes row and col scopes for screen readers and would also advise that sortable tables should have linkable items linked every time. Also, please make sure you comply throughout with WP:DASH, there are a number of hyphens misused. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the lead
  • Why "original"? Shouldn't that be "Canada-based"? The semi-colon should really be a colon or a dash.<>
  • Needs some copy-editing throughout for better flow. For example, all the sentences of the second paragraph seem very disconnected from one another. (and the two about the reruns are completely unnecessary in the lead)
  • Last sentence uses "longest running" twice (reads clumsily) and gives the impression that the series is still airing new episodes.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Original" means "part of Cartoon Cartoons, a collective name for the original Cartoon Network series," which is now explained. I think that the sentences in the second paragraph feel a bit more conected (minus the third one) now. In the last sentence, I reduced the number of "longest runing"s to one and made clear that the series has ended. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • 70 (as a whole), 131 (separate) is confusing if never explained. Pick one and let the list expand on that.
  • "During the show's run... regular series airings" - change to active voice?
  • The purpose of the series overview section 2nd paragraph is unclear to me. As someone who is unfamiliar with the show, why am I being told about the lack of other characters? I would much rather hear more about recurring side-characters (if they exist) or about the setting, instead of finding out that "new locations are rarely introduced". Tell me about what exists, not what doesn't exist. Consider moving the voicing section up to series overview since it talks much more about characters there?
    • I didn't remove the paragraph, however, did add one about the existing characters. I moved the character info from the Voicing section to Overview, so it's fine now. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 14:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 3rd paragraph of that section, is there a ref for that stuff? Also, it feels borderline like trivia, particularly the AKA bit.
    • By simply viewing the series, you'll see "AKA"s, so, no, no need for refs. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 14:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-obvious, potentially contestable statements need refs. I'm also still not convinced that this trivia is important enough to mention in the article at all. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Squigglevision" - dangling semicolon.
  • "The Eds also held personality traits" - the clause explaining who the Three Stooges are tries to pack in too much information. Consider giving it its own sentence.
  • "Grim Adventures of Kids Next Door" - dangling semicolon.
  • "amongst boys amongst boys" - use among.
  • Reception section begins talking about positive reviews but then dives right into Briggs' negative review. Consider moving that to after the first few praising reviews.

Overall, looks good though. Will support, pending response. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but you didn't address all the points I mentioned. Also, please don't strike through my comments. I can do that on my own when I feel they have been addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks good. Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good and informative Support. Gamnos (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Image check: Only one image, and FUR seems appropriate.
  • Spotcheck of sources: Still needed, will leave a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comment: This sentence under production, "Antonucci, an advocate of hand-drawn animation, used wobbling animation in Ed, Edd n Eddy as a homage to the hand-drawn cartoons to cartoons of the period 1940 to1980.[1]", should have a space between 'to' and '1980'. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the spacing problem, and also removed the extra "to cartoons"--Jpcase (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does the table of DVDs need to be on this article and the episode list? I know it's convenient, but whenever one gets edited, the other one will need to be edited too. Paper Luigi T • C 05:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the table from the episode list, putting the information in the overview table and lead, and kept the table in this article. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Article: "Ed, Edd n Eddy attracted an audience of 31 million households, was broadcast in 29 countries, and was popular among both children and adults."
Cite #5: "...was an instant hit with kids and adults alike. With a viewership of 31 million households, the series has enjoyed international and critical acclaim, airing in 29 countries worldwide..."
Article: "Bob Higgins, head of creative at Wild Brain, considered Ed, Edd n Eddy to be a 'landmark in animation.'"
Cite #19: "Ed, Edd n Eddy is a landmark in animation,’ notes Bob Higgins, head of creative at W!LDBRAIN."
Article: "All three main characters, and the Kanker sisters, appear as non-playable "Nano" characters in the massively multiplayer online game Cartoon Network Universe: FusionFall."
Cite #45: Source only mentions Eddy.
Article: "As of July 2012, the most recent game, Ed, Edd n Eddy: Scam of the Century, was released for the Nintendo DS on October 26, 2007"
Cite #42: Date is present.
Article: "The "Fools' Par-Ed-Ise" DVD, the box sets of the first two seasons, and several Ed, Edd n Eddy t-shirts are available for purchase on the Cartoon Network Shop."
Cite #32: Link is broken. Products are displayed.
Article: "David Cornelius considered the Eds to be adolescent equivalents of The Three Stooges."
Cite #4: "They're junior Larrys, Curlys, and Moes for the modern age,.."

Article appears to reflect sources overrall. but I did come across one that doesn't do it exactly and a deadlink. LittleJerry (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the dead link. Regarding the "FusionFall" source, for now I'll add the game itself as a source, as I play the game at times myself, and screenshots can also be found, and it sadly seems that no source mentions all the characters. I'll still leave the current source. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ed,_Edd_n_Eddy/archive1&oldid=1142603152"