Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like try for FA at some point. That might sound like a longshot when the page isn't even at GA level yet, but I'm not sure how much more I can expand it beyond what I already have added. There surprisingly didn't seem to be many reviews outside of what's currently used. Maybe I just missed something. Any input would be welcome (especially on being comprehensive).

Thanks, SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comments: This article has issues with details and reliable sources. As a note, I'm very familiar with the subject, having been an editor since this whole movie was still a rumor, but I'm approaching this in the mindset of someone who has never seen the show before. Here are my observations:

• The lead section only mentions "the Eds" as money-making schemers (are they children, adults, or something else?) and does not describe their relation to the Peach Creek Cul-de-Sac (or, for that matter, the kids who are the object of the devastation). The use of "the Peach Creek Cul-de-Sac" also comes off as an unnecessary detail in the lead when something like "their neighborhood" would be more fitting.
• The eight-paragraph plot section feels long-winded and padded. A more compact plot summary would be easier to read. Consider curating details that have no bearing on any of the prose that follows. Also, the wikilink to whale seems unnecessary.
• Personally I feel like the cast section, whose members are all 1:1 with the main series' then-cast except for Eddy's brother, is redundant with the infobox. Though the section includes a link to the character list, as a standalone section it could benefit by adding short, concise descriptions of each character to every line. For example, maybe change "Tony Sampson as Eddy" to "Tony Sampson as Eddy, the greedy but self-conscious leader of the Eds" or change "Kathleen Barr as Marie Kanker and Kevin" to "Kathleen Barr as Marie Kanker, the blue-haired Kanker sister, and Kevin, the short-tempered bike-rider often at odds with the Eds."
• The BCDb archive link to archive.org is broken, apparently because that page has been excluded from archiving.
• The phrase "90 minute special" is used in quotes both in the lead and in the "development and release" sections, which makes it read like scare quotes.
• The sentence, "IGN confirmed that the series was on hiatus due to the film in November 2007", is a stretch given that the source only mentions that the series was "Currently on hiatus for a supposed movie". The linked IGN article, a review of the Nintendo DS game Scam of the Century, otherwise has nothing to state about the movie.
• Regarding the "lost episode" of season six, only one source lists the airdate and the other lists the "lost episode" phrase. Can this episode be regarded as "lost" in any other verifiable source?
• Consider adding a sentence summarizing the reception, such as "Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show received generally positive reviews from critics," to the beginning of the reception section instead of jumping headfirst into a specific review. The bit about HBO Max could reasonably be split into its own paragraph.

I hope my feedback will be helpful to you, and best wishes on getting this article promoted. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This definitely is helpful, Paper Luigi, and I very much appreciate it! Most of your suggestions have been implemented. Regarding the lost episode that constituted season six, you can also find that description here. I'm hesitant to add any summary for "Reception" without any accompanying refs that mention an overall assessment per WP:SYNTH. Three reviews alone doesn't feel like enough to draw such conclusions. A qualm I have with splitting off the HBO Max bit is that this would be a rather short paragraph on its own with a singular sentence. That would make the flow of text feel choppy. Not sure what to do about that archiving problem when the unarchived link seems to work fine. Another ambiguity is the exact age of the characters (though I suspect Eddy is 13 when his ID in season 4's "Your Ed Here" gives an age of 12 after being hinted during season 1's "A Pinch to Grow an Ed" while the other Peach Creek residents are close in age except for Sarah and Jimmy being younger, and this movie comes back to the summer setting of seasons 1–4 after season 5 and the Halloween special was in the fall while the other 3 specials and season 6 were in the winter). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

My suggestions were meant with the best of intentions, and I'm glad they have been helpful to you. The CBR article cited in your comment is a good read. I happened to have read that same article recently when trying to track down streaming services carrying the holiday specials, but due to the specials' lack of legal availability online, I have my old VHS recordings from the '00s to turn back to. I also have the Cartoon Network DVD that includes the Christmas special, "Jingle Jingle Jangle", but that's beside the point.

The CBR article was written in 2021 and, presumably, the "lost episode" comment can plausibly be sourced to this Wikipedia article. I say this because I've checked both the main series' article and its episode list and found no mention in either of them the "lost episode" phrase for season six. Contemporary articles about older animation series can at times rely on Wikipedia as a primary source due to the timetables imposed by publishers. I would say it's not in WP's best interest to include an article on the topic written so many years after the fact that doesn't link a supporting secondary or primary source in its body.

As for the reception section, three reviews alone does raise a red flag for critical insight, but when those are the only available reviews, we must consider the magnitude this TV film had. Were there many reviews excluded from this section, or only a handful? Were any of the excluded reviews critically negative? If no hard evidence of an exceptionally negative review can be gathered for this section, I think it's safe to say a general "positive reviews from critics" sentence could be thrown in without any uproar from the community.

Since the exact age of the Eds or their peers is not explicitly defined, you may want to refer to them collectively as "adolescents". This takes away the predefined age groups of "teenage" and "preteen" and instead groups them into the more vaguely defined age group concerning puberty. Just my two cents. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed "lost episode" bit at least until something outside of CBR can be found (the only other credible thing I came across was another CBR piece used) and inserted adolescent description. Aside from the fact that the Peach Creek residents attend a Junior High school, the best clue we have for a range is they're all probably under 16 based on how Double D tells Eddy "we're too young to drive" when trying to start up his brother's car towards the beginning of the film, but even that's rather vague. Unless you count fan commentary posted on YouTube videos, Reddit, DeviantArt, etc., I didn't find any other reviews for the movie, and only one had been inserted before I started my expansion. This shocked me when I could've sworn there would be more available given the high ratings and how many fans enjoyed it (though I definitely wouldn't insert any fansites). If I do at any point come across any negative commentary from critics, then I'll be sure to add those. Maybe somebody else will later dig up things I never found. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like removing the "lost episode" phrase does not do any harm to this article as its topic does not rely on the sixth season, or, more appropriately, the single episode included as part of the sixth season. You're correct when saying that the Eds are "too young to drive" a car, which is mentioned not only in this film, but also in an earlier episode wherein the Eds try to emulate their older parents and Ed himself tries to drive a car, which elicits an almost verbatim response from Double D. Now that's all in-universe info, granted, but it still stands that canonically, the Eds cannot be old enough to drive, the age of which is 15/16 in the United States and Canada. Therefore the term "adolescent" is the best way to describe them.

As for movie critics' reviews of the subject, there is clearly a very shallow pile of reviews to gather from on the Internet today. The Internet of the past is another matter, as many archives exist and many of those contemporary sources have been lost on the greater Internet due to timeliness and precedence. Consider using TheFreeLibrary, LexisNexis, or the archived TimeWarner press releases as a starting point. Again, best wishes on getting this article promoted. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47

I was a huge Ed, Edd n Eddy fan as a child so I would love to read this article and help out as much as possible. As Paper Luigi has already mentioned, I would suggest that you try to look for contemporary sources that may have been lost with time. Along with the links already mentioned above, Newspapers.com is another one that would be worth looking into further. I am leaving this up as a placeholder as I do not have the time right now to do a review, but please ping me if I have not gotten back to this in a week. I would love to see this article in the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking forward to it :). So far, the TimeWarner link gave me URL errors when searching through that (probably because its archive dates back to a time before the company got renamed to WarnerMedia), and TheFreeLibrary didn't provide anything of substance unless I just didn't insert the best key terms. I hope Newspapers.com is more useful (something I'm definitely familiar with). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

With the Time Warner link, the URL errors come more as a result of technical limitations and feasibility. Like many other archived pages, the search function on Time Warner's archived site will most likely error because the archive system only keeps pages that could be crawled at the time. For an archived page's search feature to work, the results page of that search need to be on the archive server, meaning the program doing the archiving would have to save a vast amount of URLs to potential searches that look like "http://www.example.com/search.php?q=[INSERT KEYWORDS HERE]". This would not be practical, let alone feasible, for every search term, and outside of the rare chance that someone manually archived the search results page for the specific term being searched, these search boxes are unusable. Combing the archive for resources would be better done by clicking through the page until a list of press releases is found. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Do you think the unseen character link would be beneficial for this part, unnamed (and previously unseen) older brother?
• In the lead's second paragraph, I think the beginning part could be tightened somewhat, specifically the 2007 bits.
• For this part, A sixth season for the series was shortened because, do you think it would be beneficial to mention that the season was shortened to two episode segments? I think that would help to convey to the reader how the season was shortened significantly.
• For the "Cast" section, I think it would be best to lead with Credits adapted from The Big Cartoon DataBase. to clearly define the citation for this information from the top.
• I have two comments about this part, On July 27, 2007, at the 2007 Comic-Con, a.k.a. announced that the film. I do not think the specific date is necessary. I would also further define "Comic-Con" as San Diego Comic-Con.
• In the "Reception" section, I would avoid putting the number rating in the prose. An example of this is, gave the film an "8.2/10" rating. Unless the number rating is notable on its own, I think it would be better to focus the prose on the content of the review.
• I think that it would be worth noting that these critics seem to focus on how Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show was a strong ending for Ed, Edd n Eddy.
• I think it would be beneficial to include File:Danny Antonucci.png in the "Development and release" section, especially since it was taken around the film's creation and release.
• I would link 16:9 aspect ratio in the article (i.e. production to be produced in 16:9 widescreen).
• It seems like this film received a Blu-ray (www.blu-ray.com) so I would look into that further.
• It seems like the serial comma is primarily used throughout the article. I did notice one instance (with Jono Howard, Mike Kubat, Rachel Connor and Stacy Warnick) without it so it may be helpful to look the prose with this in mind.

I hope these comments are helpful. I will try my best to look through the article more thoroughly. I am rather busy with a new job, but I will try to come back to this peer review. Best of luck with this peer review and I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Aoba47, and the article has been revised! I personally don't see a problem with rating numbers when it shows how much a reviewer does/doesn't like something. In this case, it emphasizes that he very much enjoyed the movie, so I'm inclined to keep it. As for that Blu-Ray link, it just leads to an iTunes purchase, and I couldn't find any physical release except for some possible bootlegs. I doubt those are enough to count. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses. I understand your point and I would trust your instincts and listen to what other editors/reviewers have to say about the matter. It may just be a personal preference or pet peeve of mine. Thank you for looking into the Blu-ray. The website I linked could very well be listing a bootleg or an unofficial release. When I have done work on television shows cancelled after only a few episodes, I have run into similar situations where a site says that it had a DVD release only for it to be some bootleg or someone selling recorded episodes on a disk. Best of luck with the peer review! Apologies for not being that much help with it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: It has been almost two months since the last comment was posted in this PR. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest that you reach out to editors who have written similar FAs or the article's Wikiprojects. If not, can you close this? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Can't believe it's been so long! Anyway, I already have posted notices on WikiProjects (look what that got) and would encourage more input, so maybe reaching out to specific editors will be more helpful. Let's give them a week before closing this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the super late message, but I just wanted to note that I looked through Newspapers.com and all I could find is that this was mentioned the TV listings/scheduling so it does not look like there was additional coverage there (unless I overlooked something). Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Same with me. At least I was able to find other pieces through the Wikipedia library. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• I am glad that you were able to find additional sources. When/if you take this through the FAC process, let me know as I'd be more than happy to help with that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Cat's Tuxedo

Right off the bat, I would suggest adding publisher credits to the citations wherever you can if your intention is an FA (you can usually find those at the bottom of the source's page). Also, if you really have scoured all freely-accessible sources at this point, I'll echo Aoba47's suggestion and point toward Newspapers.com as a potential resource, and strongly recommend applying for a library card at the Wikipedia Library, which would grant you free access to Newspapers's premium features and really open the place up to you. For when you reach that point, here's a tip: clippings don't require an account for outsiders to see, so it'd be in your best interest to make good friends with that clip tool. Case in point. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Cat's Tuxedo, do you mean parent corporations that own the companies when talking about publishers (e.g. Apple Inc. owning iTunes)? I could've sworn that practice became largely deprecated since 2015. Either way, I'll definitely look into old newspaper clippings and see what the Library offers. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Pretty much. And I was sure that including the publisher was encouraged for Featured-level content, likely to establish the website's notability/reliability, though I can't seem to find any concrete policy concerning that (outside of maintaining consistently-formatted citations), so I could be wrong. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought so, and will let you know my results after searching through archives. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: all I've found so far for reviews via Wikipedia Library were two UWIRE pieces. Not as much as I was hoping for (perhaps I just didn't configure it well enough), but these definitely help with expansion. Same goes for an interview with Danny Antonucci for production details (though it's frustrating how I can't seem to insert the lattermost URL without getting errors). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

OK so I tried to use the Library to access Newspapers.com and had no luck. Believe it or not, this wasn't even among the available collections when I looked through what was offered. Was there a step I missed here? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That's strange. Well, hopefully this is of better help. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

While I have watched the cartoon series, I am not familiar with the film. My review is strictly on the prose and MoS; I cannot comment on its coverage.

• "Its title characters are respectively voiced by Matt Hill, Sam Vincent and Tony Sampson, with David Paul Grove, Kathleen Barr, Erin Fitzgerald, Peter Kelamis, Janyse Jaud and Keenan Christenson playing their neighbors." I would watch out for this sentence structure (with x verb +ing) as it tends to be scrutinized at FAC and "with" is usually a bad connector.
• The cast section capitalizes the B in Eddy's Brother. The same should be done in the lead if the role was credited as such.
• I have made a small copy-edit here based on FAC folks' hatred of "however" and wordiness, and . Let me know if I accidentally changed the meaning of something or messed up in any other way.
• "The Eds then build a boat and the Eds ride on it over the river to find Eddy's brother." Prose redundancy.
• "Ed laments over their damaged friendship" - lament is a rather strong word if their friendship was "only" damaged. It would apply if their friendship was completely over IMO.

More later. FrB.TG (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• All taken care of, FrB.TG. Be warned that this article contains spoilers for the movie. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I have made a further round of edits here to avoid a repetitive/awkward prose and make MoS adjustments. This should conclude my review. This will probably not face a lot of objection prose-wise at FAC. Best of luck and ping me when you take it to FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Very much appreciated! :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from NØ

Hey SNUGGUMS, apologies for catching this relatively late. I will try to be helpful even though you probably don't need to be taking any suggestions from me, lol. I have an FAC up (that could use a media review) in case you want to do some QPQ

• The first use of animated in the opening sentence is not linked but the second is. I wonder if there is something the first one could point to as well.
• Do we need "2009" in both the first and second sentences?
• Try for active voice wherever possible ("Series creator Danny Antonucci directed the film, and co-wrote it with Jono Howard, Mike Kubat, Rachel Connor and Stacy Warnick")
• Do you think a link pointing to wikt:cul-de-sac may be useful for some readers?
• "the adolescent Eds' latest money-making scheme" - "the adolescent Ed's latest money-making scheme" maybe?
• Is "Eds" a person? If so, is it appropriate to put a "the" before their name like "To find the Eds"? Sorry if this is obvious. Given the amount of times it is used a clarification note may be beneficial.
• The picture caption could be in active voice as well.
• "a.k.a. Cartoon confirmed they were working on a 90-minute television film" - They being him and Antonucci?
• I would suggest alt texts before an FAC.
• "all Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes he has seen" - Maybe "he has seen" could be done away with for concision since it is obvious.
• The repetition of "Poortvliet" in three consecutive sentences could be revised to read better. Also, are three long sentences for the same review WP:DUE weightage?
• Probably some of the one-word direct quotes could be paraphrased.

I don't see any major issues with the article that may be a problem at FAC. Best of luck!--NØ 04:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated, MaranoFan! I've made some revisions accordingly. Since "the Eds" (both with and without apostrophes) is often used to collectively refer to the title trio, I didn't change this when unable to come up with anything better. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks okay. I would like to reiterate the thing about my FAC once more. If you weigh in there I would be likely to return the favor when you nominate this. Regards.--NØ 06:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: I reworked the plot some more after coming up with other ideas for its first sentence, MaranoFan, and hopefully you feel that improves it. As you know, I already reviewed that FAC earlier after getting the chance to do so. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I do think it reads better after the changes so these are good according to me.--NØ 01:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)