Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 04:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's begin the review

This article has gone through quite a few changes since the last time it came up for GA. I'm a little different from other reviewers, I do not like the feel of checklists or fancy forms. Hope you don't mind.

Prose is well done. No concerns with grammar or spelling. It covers the topic well and gives way to the proper lists and discussions. Though I am going to have to point out the fair volume of questionable sources used and referred to, heavily as well, in decent chunks of the article.

The first source is a personal webpage. I doubt this is a reliable source. COMMENT by Nominator: Replaced (see comments below) - There are just a few sentences sourced by it.
~~Toonbarn doesn't seem to be reliable either.~~ COMMENT by Nominator: It's not needed, and I replaced it with a source that's already in the article, so we're good. :)
~~Animation World Magazine doesn't seem to be wonderful, but it probably is okay.~~
Webpronews is probably not that reliable. Anyway to grab it from Cartoon Network themselves? COMMENT by Nominator: I have found a few replacements, please check which is the best. :)
~~Flickfilosopher is not a reliable source.~~
~~Dvdtalk is not great, but fine~~
WhosDatedWho.com is not a reliable source. While it is being used only to reflect the nomination, I'd use the actual Leo Award for it. [1] Sadly they do not seem to record nominees, so only the 2005 winner I found. Funny note, they have it as Ed, Edd and Eddie for the 2000 record. ~~[2] COMMENT by Nominator: Ahh! I can't find a replacement! :/~~ COMMENT by Nominator: WOOHOOO (see the bottom of the page)! Found sources!

The reliable source issue needs to be addressed. I've gone ahead and pointed out the Leo Awards as those were easy to grab. I'm going to put this on hold, because reliable source issues are the major point and a GA article should not be referencing blogs or personal websites for a sizable portion of its citations.

Another section is the seemingly inserted and unsourced claims. This is the most concerning from the Overview section, "...however the show started to hint at the presence of other people in its fifth season, occasionally showing the silhouettes of people and in one episode the arms of Eddy's father and Ed's mother. Beyond these partial exceptions, Eddy's brother is the only adult to appear on the show.

The show frequently makes meta-references and breaks the fourth wall. In addition, the letters AKA, the abbreviation for the name of the company that produces the show (a.k.a. Cartoon), frequently appear in the show on license plates and other items."

While it may not seem like much, but this the reliable source matter is particularly troubling as the Wayback Machine to a personal webpage is the key source for a lot of important details. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chris! Thanks for the review! The Overview section doesn't need to be sourced, since it's referencing the work itself: Similar to book, film or video game plot/synopsis sections, there is no need for sources. About DVD talk - I saw it used in FAs. Animation World Magazine is a magazine, so it should be taken as reliable - though the page looks sorta...well...cheap. :) The Toon Barn issue has been solved. But, if it will really have to be deleted, it doesn't play a major roll in the article. The 2000 winner isn't actually sourced by WhosDatedWho.com, so it'll leave all 3 Leo-nominations unsourced. :/ The first source I think should be reliable and is really important for some of the sections, so... Webpro news is not reliable? Flickphilosopher is one of the reviews, and if deleted, there'll only be two reviews: but, it's not that big of a problem, so it'll be removed. I'll just cross out the obvious solved issues myself, if you don't mind.

Hi again. If you look on the official Ed, Edd n Eddy site (which is its page on CartoonNetwork.com), it says that the show is part of Cartoon Planet, but it doesn't say since when. Oh, and the YouTube video that is enbeded on the page is from Cartoon Network's official YouTube account, which can actually be used as a reliable source. If not, these are the replacements I found: this and this and this AND this. Are they good? --Khanassassin ☪ 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Leo Award 2000 source has been added. --Khanassassin ☪ 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Leo Award 2005 added. --Khanassassin ☪ 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Leo Awards nomination that wasn't even added! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information found in the "personal" page interview can be replaced with the "Season 1 DVD interview, I'll se what I can do... --Khanassassin ☪ 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nickandmore.com is not a reliable source so it can't be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the others? --Khanassassin ☪ 14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I replaced the Animation by Mistake interview with the DVD Interview source. I prefered to use the AbM interview, since I thought it was reliable and people could see it without buying the DVD, but since it's not reliable, I replaced it. There's only a few sentences sourced by it. Now, there are still three WhosDatedWho,com sources, which we'll have to replace. Uff, but with what? - I added the avaliable Leo Awards sources, and three are still WhosDatedWho sources - I can't find a replacement! :/ Think fast, think fast. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'YES! I found replacements for the WhosDatedWho sources! I went to the internet archive and went to the archived official Leo Awards pages for nominees! YEEEEEAAAAH! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I was looking for a source or something to point out that AKA is on many objects is simply because no example exists and while it has been awhile since I've seen the show, its one of those things that are hard to miss. It almost falls under the 'trivia' class of info, but its more of a 'did you know' since it is a singular instance. So a source or a note in a few episodes in which the AKA appears would be great, purely for verification even as a primary source. It won't prevent a pass though, since its not really contentious. The big part is still the sourcing matters. A livejournal is not a reliable source either, seems to be difficulty in sourcing some of the bits, but it seems that the Ed's Wikipedia seems to be a close mirror of this article albeit with no sources. themarysue.com is another unreliable source, it is a personal website from mediaite with no sign of editorial oversight, its a blog basically. That first source is the problem one for me... I heard something about interviews on the DVDs themselves; perhaps those could be used other then an archived personal webpage. I'll do some digging on it myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already used the DVD Interview source, and there are just a few sentences with the first source, so that's not that much of a problem. Like I said, there are a few words about the Cartoon Network blog on the Ed, Ed n Eddy website, so... yeah.

Just as a note: Only this is now sourced by the archived interview:

>>The kids have multi-colored tongues because, as Danny Antonucci stated, kids are almost always eating something that turn their tongues different colors.[2]

It has been noted that there is a lack of adults in the show, which Antonucci stated was intentional explaining, "throughout the long days of summer you simply didn't see anyone else's parents about and sometimes you didn't even see your own. Take the 'Edd's parents' factor, their means of communicating with him via sticky note, my parents worked long hours and they left me written messages in much the same way."[2]<< :)

It's not too much, and not all-too important. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This works. Its from Cartoon Network's podcast apparently. Mirrored on Youtube. [3] Though I found another interview with really strong language... though its not even from a great source, but it is an interview. Just so much profanity. [4] Again Youtube videos are not reliable sources for anything, and the first is just a mirror of a CN one, which CN would be reliable so I'd jump the connection and use the first link as a mirror. Same with this [5], guessing from the DVD? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The Behind the Ink isn't from the DVD, but it has some info to be added, that was already in, but I didn't find a source. So, it can be used, probably. The rest are from "The Best Day Edder," the marathon, and alot of the things he says are similar to what he says on the interview. Well, he actually says everything here, and a bit more about how it started (Nickelodeon and CN etc.) So, it could be used, but everythings on the interview on the DVD. The only thing is the tounges and "lack of adults," which are the only sentences sourced by the archived interview, and there is no mention about neither on YouTube nor on DVD. :/ --Khanassassin ☪ 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Maybe it's the Season 2 DVD Interview? I have the first, not the second (this one's is better, btw). --Khanassassin ☪ 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check on it real quick. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the interview, I don't have the DVD anyways, but the colored tongues matter can be dropped or reworked. The lack of adults doesn't need to be cited to a specific comment, but can just be reworked slightly, its not a serious matter. Its only minor issues now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some checking, the ABM website has this tagline 'ABM is maintained by Kit in collaboration with aka CARTOON INC' meaning that it is at least officially recognized, but it is still a fansite. It might be okay as is, if no other source has it, the weight on an unreliable source must be low and specific, this seems to be not ideal, but acceptable for its current role in the article. If you agree then I'll pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I answered on your talk-page. The answer is yes, I agree. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

Article has been touched up. Promoted to GA status. For the previous review in which it did not pass please see: Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy/GA1 ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]