Talk:The Ed-Touchables

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Ed-Touchables/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 14:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Image: The image is far to large, I'd shrink it
• Image: What's the rationale for it? "To illustrate the appearance of the subjects." Is just a boilerplate rationale and could lead to the file being deleted. I'd add a better rationale
• Plot: "who offer the Eds to receive money if they catch the thief" -> "who offer the Eds money if they catch the thief"</ref>
• Plot: "The Eds jump out of the back of the bush" -> "The Eds, who are hiding in a shrub, jump out of the bush"
• Plot: "being the only way the Eds would let him use the bathroom" -> "allowing him to use the bathroom"
• Plot: Why is Cul-de-Sac capitalized?
• Production: "minor post-production delays" What were these delays?
  • They're unknown, so there's no helping with that.
• Production: As with reception below, I feel this section is really short and skimpy. Any extra info out there to beef it up?
• Reception: Is there any sort of reception for this episode, like ratings or reviews? Usually those are pretty important for an episode page
  • (for the above two comments) Sadly, the show lacks of references and reviews/ratings. There are a couple of reviews available, like two or three, but are Ed, Edd n Eddy reviews, not "The Ed-Touchables" reviews.
• References: 6 out of the 8 are basically primary sources. [4] is good, as is [5], but are there any others out there? As is, I feel uncomfortable promoting this with the quality of sources
  • Please read my above comment. - Ed, Edd n Eddy, though it is a very popular show, lacks of references/reception. Most of the reliable Ed, Edd n Eddy sources are all included in the main Ed, Edd n Eddy article. There's not much Production/Reception info on the show, let alone a single episode of it. :/ - But, I already know this article has no chance of ever becoming a FA, but I thougt it might alteast make it to GA. :/ :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I added one other prose issue (capitalization). Also, I asked for a second opinion from another editor just to be safe, and he agrees with me: a GA just can't be built solely on primary sources. I'm still sticking this on hold for a week so you can try and find some, but as it is, there desperately needs to be a reception and review section.76.246.176.32 (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added a bit of info on the reception. No episode-dedicated review, because there is none, but I have noted that "Ed, Edd n Eddy was one of Cartoon Network's top-rated shows since its premiere," which actually means "since the premiere of 'The Ed-Touchables'." :) I have also noted that the series went on to win a number of awards, pointing out the season 1-dedicated awards, since the episode is part of season 1. :) This is really the only info available, and it atleast adds some secondary sources. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 07:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the bit about "top-rated shows" is very good. Maybe add that it particularly resonated with adolescent boys, or whatever the citation mentioned, as that's pretty pertinent to the show. Unfortunately, I don't think awards for a season that don't specifically mention the episode willt cut it. I had a similar issue when I was promoting this episode to GA, because I had a citation that I couldn't link back to the episode. Besides that, I still feel very uncomfortable with the lack of reliable reviews for this article. One of the criteria for a GA is to prove that en episode is notable, but a lack of reliable sources, other than a few one-off mentions makes this a tricky case. In all honesty, I think this is a properly decent B-class article, but I don't think it has the size or scope for GA just yet. I'll still give you a few days, though.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think atleast this page'll have a chance? --Khanassassin ☪ 16:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, hard to say. It looks a little better off. I hate to sound like a wiki-jerk. What I'll do is ask for a second opinion and go with that.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks --Khanassassin ☪ 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to give a second opinion on this review; though it'll probably come off as harsh. I can't see this passing as it is, I'm afraid; the lack of secondary sourcing is too severe for a GA to go with. Even at that, refs 1–3 are entirely needless as an article doesn't have to cite its own subject like that. I'd imagine those three DVD releases mentioned in the season one article will have something you could work with, either in terms of special features, or even a booklet which might list episode credits or the like. A review on sites like IGN or DVD Talk for any of those releases might also have something for you to work with; and since this is the pilot episode, anything which mentions the inception of the series will generally deal with it too. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No review of season 1 on either DVD Talk or IGN: IGN has a review of the Season 1, Volume 1 DVD, however, that DVD doesn't feature the pilot episode. The extras on the DVD mention nothing of the pilot episode, but I might add that he tryed to sell it to Nickeloden and Cartoon Network, but he chose CN because... So, I guess a bit could be added in the Production section (a small bit), but really, nothing in the reception section. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added a bit to the Production, but, using a primary source. :| --Khanassassin ☪ 15:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal. The production section looks quite a bit better now. I would say its been expanded to what it should be. The Reception is still rather small. I think this is a solid B article at the moment. If you wait a bit (probably not this week, or next, but eventually), maybe some reviews will pop up that you can add. Right now I'm afraid the lack of secondary sources and reviews just doesn't show that this episode/article is particularly notable and broad in coverage; thus I won't be able to pass it. That being said, its got enough juice in it to one day become a GA. If you can get it up to snuff, I'd love to take another look at it. :)--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, but let's just wait a few more days till the end of the seven day period, and then we'll fail it, just for safe keeping, if a miracle happens that a review gets published by some site. Oh, and, could you please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eds are Coming, the Eds are Coming, an article I made, which I think should be kept, but it seems that people want a redirect. Could you vote (not saying you have to vote "keep," just go vote so it'll be over with). Thanks again for being so enthusiastic. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 12:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You requested a second opinion, and so I'll offer one. I'm sorry, but I really do not think that this can possibly be a good article because of the lack of secondary sources. I would recommend that you stick to doing good work on on the main articles on the show, because I don't think coverage exists for articles on the episodes. Anything close to a decent source on this article is about the show, not even mentioning this episode by name. I'm afraid that this means that, even more so than this not being suitable for GA status, it doesn't really warrant an article at all; it simply isn't notable. The fact it was the first one means that it warrants half a line in the main article, but, in this case, not an article of its own. J Milburn (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to close this as unsuccessful. Maybe in the future? I think there's reasonable references for the article to exist, but I think it is just too small to be completely notable yet. Thank you very much for your patience and good attitude. If you can find anything to bulk it up, give a holler and I'll look over it later. Cheers.--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, I guess you're right. There's just currently not enough sources; I'd doubt that it'll magicly appear in the future, but, hey, I tried my best, and if something really does magically appear, I'll keep tryin'. For now I'll just keep working on the main EEnE articles. Thank you, Gen. Quon, for not being a douch as many reviewers can be. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 15:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)