Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Rocky Horror Picture Show/1

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per discussion below. Including the nominator and an active editor, there are five votes to delist, no votes to keep, and this discussion has run a month. This article needs a bit of work on the prose, a lot of work on citing the claims made in the article with reliable sources, and any factual dispute should be resolved before renomination. Aaron north (T/C) 19:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many clean up tags on the article, The reception accuracy is disputed. The music/soundtrack sections look bad compared to (more recent) other GAs The_Dark_Knight_(film)#Music, Twilight_(2008_film)#Music, or FA The_Simpsons_Movie#Music. The lead has 7 references, and shouldn't have any, as everything should be covered in the body. The cast section needs clean up and expansion, note the first and third above mentioned films. More references are needed:

The_Rocky_Horror_Picture_Show#Costumes The whole 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are unsourced
this doesn't appear to be a reliable source.

Well ya get the point, just those from one small paragraph. CTJF83 chat 21:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as original reviewer. Article no longer meets the standard, as the nominator points out well. Steven Walling 23:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this should be delisted unless quite a bit more work is done on it. The prose isn't great (eg. "The film is considered to be...", "A first draft of the screenplay itself was posted on the Internet as well as the others"). I agree that there should definitely be more about the music, it's such an important part of a film like this. I started The Rocky Horror Picture Show (soundtrack) to allow some extraneous stuff to be moved there; I'm not sure the film article needs a track listing at all since we already have a list of songs included.

As for sources, I'm sure of the reliability of sites like godamongdirectors.com or crazedimaginations.com. I'm a little confused about a book cited called History of the American cinema. The googlebooks link provided goes to a book with a different title and author. Looking on Worldcat, there seem to be a couple of different titles possible, and two authors mentioned, so I think the book is ok, but the citation needs to be clearer.

I'm not sure about the "disputed factual accuracy" tag; there's no relevant discussion on the talkpage. It was added back in March with the edit summary "Cult following began earlier in Philadelphia at the TLA)" but no source is provided and the current version appears to be cited to a reliable source. Having said that, I don't have access to the source; it would be helpful if that could be checked.

The citations seem to have been removed from the lead. At the moment, the lead doesn't adequately summarise the whole article.--Beloved Freak 14:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citations to begin working on the article and did some copy editing on it but I have not been back to complete the rest.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist In total agreement with original reviewer. As the major contributer that worked to get the review and completed standards needed to accomplish it I also feel the article no longer meets the standard and may well be difficult to meet those standards again with current instability. I hate to give up on this article, but it is an anniversaty year and may calm down in a few months.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The prose is not terrible. If that were the only problem this could be salvagable, and there are perhaps a few unsupported words to watch to deal with. WP:WTW However, as mentioned earlier this article is poorly cited, the accuracy is disputed, and the article is a bit unstable right now. Aaron north (T/C) 19:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]