Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [1].

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

[edit]
Nominator(s): SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration, I give you the series finale to Ed, Edd n Eddy. I've taken the page from this to what it is now since the start of 2022. Unless one counts a review from Steve Pulaski, the reception section has been expanded to include all the reviews I found from trustworthy publications. Hopefully it's comprehensive enough to meet FA standards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image assessment from Buidhe

[edit]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • What is the current structure for the "Reception" section? I think it would be more helpful to give this section more structure so readers could get a better sense of how critics viewed this film. I believe this essay, WP:RECEPTION, is very helpful for working on these types of sections as they can be difficult to write. I just do not think have this information presented in a long, single paragraph is ideal or as engaging as it could be. To be clear all the information in this section is good. My concern is about it is structured.

This is my only comment. I believe all of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review so I do not have too much to add. Once my above comment is addressed, I will support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope this is helpful and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, Aoba47, I didn't have a particular order/structure in mind when compiling the reviews and am not sure how to rework them. If it wasn't limited to five sources who all felt it did a good job of ending the series, then I might have a better sense of what to do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fair, and I completely understand your point. I will read through that section more thoroughly either today or tomorrow to see if I could get a better handle it to give more direct feedback or suggestions. It could be a case where this is the best way to present this information. I hope that it is okay with you and apologies for the wait. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. Upon further review, this section looks good to me. The paragraph begins with a clear overview of what critics discussed (i.e. how it was a strong conclusion for the series). I appreciate how the reviews are presented in a chronological order and I do think that helps keep the prosing engaging because of the transitions in place around that. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and I appreciate the support :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I could help and I was more than happy to read the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review, but I completely understand if you are busy. Bust of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should have something from me within 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FrB.TG

[edit]

Source review from NØ (Pass)

[edit]

I really like this article's size so I hope it's okay if I grab it for my first-ever source review!

  • What makes this a high-quality source? I wasn't able to locate an About Us page and it appears to host a forums section.
  • All of the other sources appear to be reliable for the purposes they are used.
  • The MovieAddictz ref is not working for me but the archive appears to be ok so it should be marked as dead.
  • Ref formatting appears to be consistent with how individual articles on the agencies italicize.
  • Spotchecks show nothing of concern.--NØ 02:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it might be worth, MaranoFan, here you can find an "About Us" page for ToonZone before it got renamed to Anime Superhero. That's much more detailed than what you'll find on the current incarnation. What I can safely say is that (under both names) this is a place dedicated to animation with news pieces and isn't just limited to forums. It's not being used for any particularly contentious claims (season 5 being completed along with announcement for future movie) and only seems to be recapping what participants discussed at Comic-Con in 2006. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that page: "Toonzone is an animation news and information web site run by a group of devoted animation fans. [...] What originally began as a small discussion area on old Prodigy service", unfortunately this doesn't give me a lot of confidence. RSN seems to have been divided (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), with some allegations of WP:SPS. A bit unsure this is passable for FA.--NØ 04:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do TheThings and Tom Holland's Terror Time look in comparison? Regarding credentials, you can look here for the former while the latter is from a site by the famous director Tom Holland, often focusing on horror-related works. It also stitches together tweets from Erin Fitzgerald (a member of this show's voice cast), though if you'd prefer linking to one or more of the tweets themselves, then I could probably dig them up. Another option is a video from Akeem Lawanson aka GeekHeavy, a content host for IGN. Before making replacements, I'd like your thoughts please on what would be ideal to use. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see TheThings has an editorial team so that one should work. Don't think I would use the other one.--NØ 06:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheThings has now been implemented, and I was able to use a 2008 interview with Danny Antonucci to establish how this would mark the debut of Eddy's brother :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, MaranoFan: do you know how to manually archive links without a tool? My three tries earlier today to run IABot for adding them to newly inserted URLs somehow did nothing at all (which surpised me when this previously worked for other links), and adding these to Wayback Machine also failed :/. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done; the article now passes my source review.--NØ 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your input and archiving are appreciated :D! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero

[edit]

Oppose

  • Sourcing issues
    • PatricCaird.com
    • ToonZone
    • Use of databases such as the LoC and the Big Cartoon DataBase
    • UWIRE
    • Animated Times
  • Prose issues
    • "It can be purchased on the iTunes Store and runs for 89 minutes"
    • Plot is overly detailed

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except for maybe Toon Zone per above comments, Guerillero, I cannot see any issue with the sources used. In particular, Caird's site feels fine when he composed this film's score. Not sure how much plot to cut when that already has been trimmed down from what it was this past December/January. Each detail included IS relevant. As for the iTunes bit, I hope cutting that to focus more on duration helps in some capacity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be "high-quality reliable sources" not just reliable. I stand behind my review. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting the Library of Congress isn't high quality!? That's quite frankly absurd. The least you could do is suggest how to revise the plot or give some useable links. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyright Office is an example of the use of databases for basic facts instead of secondary sources. (It's use doesn't support the statement it is used for)

The role of reviewers at FAC is to provide opinions as to how the article stacks again the criteria, not to find sources. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release/creation dates sound pretty basic to me and they CAN be found in the Copyright Office. You just have to click the link under "Full title" to see more details. I now have revised that link accordingly. In all honesty, your assessment of the refs outside of Toon Zone comes off as unfair, especially when mainstream media coverage of animated TV often is limited compared to what one would find for live action series/movies or even theatrically released animations. This means we sometimes have to look elsewhere for the best possible sources to use on things regarding cartoon shows (which is what I did prior to nominating for FA). You'd be hard-pressed to find much better things than what's already been added. Regarding the plot section, it isn't helpful at all too simply call that "too detailed" without elaborating on which parts could be cut without losing essential information. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guerillero, just checking if your oppose still stands? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Real life got busy. I am looking over this again today -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Are you certain? The whole point it tries to make is that this is the brother's debut appearance (after prior episodes only alluded to him) and that his name is never specified. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Credits adapted from The Big Cartoon DataBase.[1] - can we not say anything more helpful here? Like, give the readers an understanding as to what they are reading. I know the topic is "cast", but could easily say "below is a list of voice actors" or similar. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In The Complete Second Season DVD's "Behind the Eds" interview, he hinted that the film would reveal what is under Double D's hat, though this never occurred. A few episodes, such as "Run Ed, Run", implied that he is bald. - I don't really see what this has to do with this special. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Just a note - I don't really look at sourcing during my FAC reviews (unless something specific pops up), I see there are some comments on this above, so I wouldn't vouch for the quality of the sourcing used. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, Lee Vilenski! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]

I support this nomination, pending however much importance coords decide to accord to the concerns others raised (I suppose it still being open is a good sign).--NØ 12:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have my gratitude for doing so. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

[edit]

I'm going to focus on sources, since those seem to be the biggest issues here.

  • Sources 1, 6, 10, and 11 are database sources or the equivalent, and they really aren't that special – most TV episodes would have these sources.
  • Sources 2, 7, 9, and 12 are self-published sources, either directly or indirectly (via press releases).
  • Sources 4 and 5 only tangentially touch on the topic.

This leaves seven sources that could possibly be considered "reliable" and contribute to notability – the bare minimum for a stand-alone article. This would be sufficient for a typical article, but considering that WP:FACR requires high-quality sources, there are more issues.

The two remaining sources (8 and 17) are fine, but they're nowhere near enough to support a FA, in my opinion. I'm leaning oppose, unfortunately. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having only a brief mention doesn't negate reliability, RunningTiger123, even when less useful for building articles. Databases and self-published sources can also come in handy for basic information (which is what I used them for here). For the pieces that go into further depth, see the above discussion for deciding to use ref#3 (TheThings), which does have an editorial team and I'm not sure how that resembles Showbiz Cheat Sheet. Student newspapers might not be held in as high regard as most mainstream newspapers, but it's not like either of the ones implemented are used for anything controversial, only their opinions on the movie. Same goes for MovieAddictz and Animated Times. If I knew of any better things to include, then I already would've added those. Perhaps we just missed something that was published after I initiated the FAC? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the brief mentions/databases/self-published sources: Yes, they are still reliable sources, but my point was that there isn't a lot of high-quality coverage. It's one thing to fill in small gaps with those types of sources; it's another to base the majority of an article off of those.
  • Regarding TheThings: I hadn't seen that discussion. If consensus is to include it, then that's fine. I personally think it's clickbait (Title: "Why was it canceled?" → It wasn't, it was actually renewed for two seasons past its original end date) and should be replaced with a different source, especially since it's citing a random YouTube video as its source. Speaking of UGC...
  • Regarding lower-quality sources for opinions: If a source is not high-quality, then its reviews are basically just user-generated content, similar to any review you might find on IMDb, Metacritic fan ratings, etc. The college sources fall into this point (in my opinion) because there's no way to know if the authoring students are significant in any way. Also, the Vocal Media and Real Atlanta sources are UGC, as best as I can tell. The Screen Rant article basically says "the movie is a thing that exists", which isn't particularly strong coverage. The Collider article seems okay, though it's not enough to switch my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it might be worth, the YouTube video is from an IGN content host (something I noted earlier); GeekHeavy isn't simply a random user. Our next best option from what I can tell is to use a link that compiles tweets from a cast member (see above). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a borderline case. WP:RSPYT indicates that the credibility of a video is inherited from its creator. If this had been published via IGN directly I'd be good with it, but since it comes from someone who just happens to work there, it's not as strong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I myself would've preferred to see something uploaded through IGN's channel, but oh well. Added Collider in the meantime. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi RunningTiger123, just checking that you are still leaning oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm not strongly opposed to this article, but I unfortunately find the sourcing to be of questionable quality, especially in the Reception section. I know it can be harder to find reviews for animated shows, but that doesn't mean we should allow lower-quality sources — Wikipedia articles, and especially FAs, should reflect the coverage in reliable, high-quality sources. If that coverage isn't there, adding questionable sources isn't the solution. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • How much do you believe adding interviews like this would help, RunningTiger123? It admittedly is rather long (over 2 hours), but does feature discussion of the writing process for the film. Maybe Danny Antonucci (the movie's director as well as a co-writer) has some other commentary on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have any issues with that source at first glance (though it leans closer to UGC because the podcast isn't particularly notable, and UGC isn't ideal). But it doesn't address any of the issues regarding reception. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: - At two months in and multiple oppose/lean opposes, I'm going to be archiving this. The usual two-week waiting period for renomination does apply. I would strongly recommend working with RunningTiger123 and Guerillero about their sourcing concerns before renominating. Hog Farm Talk 13:51, 29 July 2022 (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%27s_Big_Picture_Show/archive1&oldid=1101234944"