Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy season 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ed, Edd n Eddy season 1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ed, Edd n Eddy season 1 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2012	Featured list candidate	Not promoted
January 20, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
March 31, 2013	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Cartoon Network Mid‑importance

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animation: American / Television Mid‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by TBrandley, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 21, 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

The Ed-Touchables merge

As was discussed at Talk:The Ed-Touchables/GA1, there simply do not exist any reliable sources discussing this episode, and the episode itself (as opposed to the series) has recieved no recognition. As such, it is not notable. I appreciate that it is the first episode of the series, but notability is not inherited. Anything that is worth saying about the episode should be merged here, as there simply is not enough content to support an article. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. This episode is still needs to be on Wikipedia, and this article should stay on its own. LGyro (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that the episode is notable? Has it won any awards? Is there any discussion of it in reliable third party sources? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with J Milburn's comments. The reception section has no specific comment on the episode itself; neither does the production section. Eshlare (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this should be merged per above reasons. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE

Just finished my GOCE copy-edit, have the following comments now:

"Feeling confined to gross and edgy work" is violation of WP:EUPHEMISM
"cul-de-sac" explain what this means
"the only way to save Edd is to bring Sarah and Jimmy back together" what does that mean?
"The Eds decide to go to Rolf's" who?
"However, to get the egg, the Eds must go through a series of trades." huh; awkward
"The Eds all have new clothes. Ed and Eddy try to break them in, but end up ruining them. After that, the Eds hear about the "Urban Rangers" and decide to join in order to receive their uniforms, but Eddy begins to fake the good deeds." I honestly don't get any of that. Perhaps re-write
Episodes do actually require cleanup a bit

TBr and ley 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 19:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's what I've got:

Intro: "…who hang around in a suburban cul-de-sac." This seems a little colloquial. How about "…who spend time in a suburban cul-de-sac." or "…who live in a suburban cul-de-sac."
Done.
Intro: "confectionery; jawbreakers." This should be a colon instead of a semi-colon
Done.
Intro: "Dared to produce a childrens cartoon, adult cartoonist Antonucci concieved Ed, Edd n Eddy while working on a commercial design." I'm not sure what this sentence means. I think 'dared' is kind of an odd choice. I would just ditch the first clause so that it reads: "Adult cartoonist Antonucci concieved Ed, Edd n Eddy while working on a commercial design."
Done.
The first paragraph of "Concept and creation" is entirely without sources. Surely there's a synopsis somewhere online that can be used to verify this.
Concept and creation: "Having grown tired of working as an animator on various children cartoons for Hanna-Barbera, cartoonist Danny Antonucci, bothered by people thinking animation is only for children, went on to create gross and edgy adult work such as his short Lupo the Butcher and his MTV series The Brothers Grunt." Rephrase into: "Cartoonist Danny Antonucci, who had worked as an animator on various children cartoons for Hanna-Barbera, was bothered by people thinking animation is only for children. In turn, he decided to create edgy adult work such as his short Lupo the Butcher and his MTV series The Brothers Grunt." I would can the use of 'gross', as it's kind of POV
Done.
Production: The section "An affirmative response from Cartoon Network president Betty Cohen, the legal paperwork and deal-making began, followed by a start-up meeting was at the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles, where a deal was made that Antonucci's studio, a.k.a. Cartoon, would produce Ed, Edd n Eddy the first Cartoon Network original series to be produced by an outside production company rather than Cartoon Network's Hanna-Barbera, and also marked the first time the studio's original series would enter production before a seven-minute short." needs to be rephrased into -> "After an affirmative response from Cartoon Network president Betty Cohen, the legal paperwork and deal-making began, followed by a start-up meeting was at the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles. A deal was made that Antonucci's studio, a.k.a. Cartoon, would produce Ed, Edd n Eddy the first Cartoon Network original series to be produced by an outside production company rather than Cartoon Network's Hanna-Barbera. The series also entered production and by-passed a seven-minute short; this marked the first time that one of the studio's original series had ever done this."
Done.
Production: "Antonucci also showed the theme song" How does one 'show' a song? :P Was it on paper, or did he play it? If it was the latter, rewrite to "Antonucci also played the theme song for the network executives" or whoever heard it.
Done.
Production: whisseled -> whistled, this is spelled wrong twice
Done.
Production: "Antonucci, an advocate of hand-drawn animation, wanted to ensure Ed, Edd n Eddy was produced in a way similar to the cartoons from the 1940s to the 1970s; the season started off a series which was the last to use cel animation; the cels were shipped to Korea for creating the initial animation, and then later edited back at Antonucci's a.k.a. Cartoon studio." Rephrase to: "Antonucci, an advocate of hand-drawn animation, wanted to ensure Ed, Edd n Eddy was produced in a manner similar to the cartoons from the 1940s to the 1970s. As a result, the series was the last to use cel animation; the cels were shipped to Korea for creating the initial animation, and then later edited back at Antonucci's studio."
Done.
Production et al: Everytime you mention "Antonucci's a.k.a. Cartoon studio", you should just say "Antonucci's" or "Cartoon" studio.
Done.
Cast: In the photo of Fitzgerald, you should probably read the cite for the "very particular" reference.
Cast: "The other two Kanker sisters…" Before this line, who else were the Kanker sisters?
Done.
Note: The note is note really needed, as it is just a "what if" scenario. I would remove it, as it didn't happen, and is thus not notable. If it had happened, it would have been something to note.
Done.
Reviews: The section that goes '"Every bit of the show is played for the maximum comic effect, and the interactions between the characters are usually very fun.", and particularly…" has a very awkward and grammatically unsound transition (.",) that needs to be fixed. Also, I would end every quote with a citation, just so we know where they are coming from.
Done.
Popular culture: "Season one, which premiered in January 1999, is doing remarkably well in the ratings. Every now and then the Cartoon Network produces a show that has an impact on popular culture or day-to-day life." I would cut this sentence complete. You already stated that it has had an impact on popular culture, and several sections above you discussed ratings.
Done.
Popular culture: I would add "During the run of the first season…" to the beginning of the sentence, "A number of fansite were already being set up."
Done.
References: Reference No. 17 needs to have IGN in it somewhere.
Done.
References: Reference No. 21 news an en dash (–) instead of a normal dash (-)
Done.
References: Reference No. 24: This is pretty much original research, as the title of the show is not reference, but alluded at. If you can find a third-party source that confirms this is an Ed, Edd n Eddy reference, it can certainly stay, but as of right now, I'd say it should be removed.
Done.
References: The 23 reference to "CartoonNetworkShop" is dead.
Fixed.

These are the big issues. The images and sources look fine. The main issue I ran into is prose. If you would like to take this further, I would suggest another copyedit, as there is quite a bit of awkward prose that is probably still hiding. I tried to clean up the minor stuff, but once the above issues are fixed, it should be good to pass.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The work looks good. I will pass this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March or June?

I just noticed this recent edit [1] to the lead, in which the final air date for the season is changed from March 29 to June 11. While the change was made by an IP editor and lacked an explanation, it does seem to make sense. The final entry in the episode list has June 11 as its air date. What gives me pause though, is that if you go back to the version of the article corresponding to moment in which it was initially promoted to GA, you'll see both dates given - March 29 in the lead and June 11 in the infobox. I don't know whether this was simply an oversight, or if there's some specific reason for the two separate dates. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look into this myself, but if anyone else can or already knows the explanation, please mention it here. --Jpcase (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]