Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy's Boo Haw Haw/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail the article because of the questionable sourcing, and questions of notability.
- "are more likely to receive more candy." Poor phrasing.
- Removed second more, better. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- "around him with the exception of his two closest friends is completely altered, so that he mistakes everyone around him" Repetition
- "The episode regularly airs during Cartoon Network's yearly Halloween seasons. The episode is part of "Cartoon Network's Super Scary Showcase" on the iTunes Store.[8]" This isn't really much to do with production; I'm wondering if this (as well as any information about appearances on DVDs and the like) could perhaps be put into a separate paragraph. The section title could be changed to something like "production and release".
- Renamed section. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is always going to be the problem on articles like this, but I'm not convinced by the sources use. The fact the author of the article on Animation Insider now contributes to a for-profit website, and the fact that he's very much one of the listed staff of Animation Insider, means I'm willing to let that one slide, but I am not convinced that it would pass the bar at FAC or RSN. However, the articles on ToonZone are not, as far as I can see, reliable at all. What's to stop just anyone signing up and posting their own review? The people doing the reviews are not professional journalists; we're not sure who they are. They have not been commissioned by the site. The site is not particular renowned or respected, as far as I can see. I can't see any reason why the articles could be considered reliable.
- While their names might sound like user names, they're not - I'm signed up at ToonZone, but I cannot post reviews - I can, but on forums, not as article which appear on the Front Page - I can post on forums and post comments, but that's it... Why? - Because, unlike the authors of the reviews, I am not a staff member. The site is actually quite popular, it gets millions of viewers and has a solid Alexa rank. I know popularity doesn't mean reliability, but it's still something. The website's a professional, not any less than IGN. You said that the sources are not at FAC level, but we're at GAN. So... yeah. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, even if they have some rights that you don't on that site, I have some rights you don't on this site; it doesn't make my userpage a reliable source. You're right about popularity not meaning reliability, but, as you say, it's perhaps something. What makes the site reliable? Is it consulted as a source by publications which definitely are reliable? Is it owned by a noted publishing house? As far as I can tell, no and no. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, they are not users. Their names might suggest so, but they are not users "with more rights on the site".
- Perhaps Time magazine linked to the website in one of its articles (see "notes given for Saturday morning cartoon X-Men" link in the article). - This would mean the site is, as you would say, "consulted as a source by publications which definitely are reliable". And yes, Time is most surely reliable.
- Gawker Media's Kotaku (*) CBS Interactive's TechRepublic (*), Venrock's Crunchyroll, (*), Atlantic Media Company's The Atlantic (*) etc. are all fools to use ToonZone as a source, right? Face it, I'm right. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need to be a dick about it. I am not at all convinced by your "not users" claim. What are they, then? Staff? I doubt they're paid; if they are, they'd probably be told to do something else other than all write reviews for the same episode. The fact the site has been used as a reference by highly respected publications is potentially more interesting. This is perhaps something which could do with some discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I thought ":)" decreased the dickness, but whatever. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, they have their own user accounts on the forums. Just like Jack Allin, one of the main writers and the publisher of Adventure Gamers does. So, technically, they are users. Rockmandash, for example, is a staff member - on the forums pointed out that "The Huntsman" (who wrote the "Top 2000s" list from the main Ed, Edd n Eddy page), is a "member of the staff" (see "Happy birthday to The Huntsman"). Note that there's an etc. at the list of respected publications lists... --Khanassassin ☪ 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, what gave you the idea they only write reviews for the same episodes? They write a bunch of stuff (click on their names in the article, which will throw out a list of their articles). Maybe a discussion should be started at the WP:RSN? --Khanassassin ☪ 18:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are three reviews for this episode; the majority of publications would, in most cases, want only a single review. I have requested a third opinion- it may be worth you making your case there. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I know what you mean. I guess the episode was just so very, very notable it needed three reviews! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 20:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are three reviews for this episode; the majority of publications would, in most cases, want only a single review. I have requested a third opinion- it may be worth you making your case there. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need to be a dick about it. I am not at all convinced by your "not users" claim. What are they, then? Staff? I doubt they're paid; if they are, they'd probably be told to do something else other than all write reviews for the same episode. The fact the site has been used as a reference by highly respected publications is potentially more interesting. This is perhaps something which could do with some discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, even if they have some rights that you don't on that site, I have some rights you don't on this site; it doesn't make my userpage a reliable source. You're right about popularity not meaning reliability, but, as you say, it's perhaps something. What makes the site reliable? Is it consulted as a source by publications which definitely are reliable? Is it owned by a noted publishing house? As far as I can tell, no and no. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- While their names might sound like user names, they're not - I'm signed up at ToonZone, but I cannot post reviews - I can, but on forums, not as article which appear on the Front Page - I can post on forums and post comments, but that's it... Why? - Because, unlike the authors of the reviews, I am not a staff member. The site is actually quite popular, it gets millions of viewers and has a solid Alexa rank. I know popularity doesn't mean reliability, but it's still something. The website's a professional, not any less than IGN. You said that the sources are not at FAC level, but we're at GAN. So... yeah. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the composer of the soundtrack of this episode was nominated for an award may make it notable, but only just, and only technically. This seems to be the last Ed, Edd n Eddy episode with an article on Wikipedia- that's telling. I think any information of worth in this article could really just be added to other pages; the details in the production section belong on a table somewhere, and the details about the award nomination certainly belong in an article somewhere (perhaps even the main article about the show).
I've searched a few databases for any sources (I thought maybe some local paper or compendium of pop culture may have covered it in some way) but I'm afraid I could find nothing at all. Once the unreliable sources have been lost, this article will be almost contentless; merging it elsewhere would be the best thing to do. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)