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

Result: Delisted for subpar prose and referencing, and no "keep" votes after more than a month Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Good Article is not substantive as it stands—fails criteria 1a, 1b, 2b and 2c. Lead is too short, plot is overlong, layout problematic (i.e. There's a Soundtrack section while there's also a Music section), prose is poorly written and has too many {{citation needed}} templates, and some of the online sources are unreliable. The Legacy section, too, reeks of trivia and does not really discuss the lasting impact it had to retrospective critics/viewers. Rather, it laid much emphasis on pop-culture references, which I find really strange considering this movie is indeed pop culture. -_- Slightlymad 09:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the plot a first pass that streamlined out some bloat, but the other issues remain. I think it's possible the unsourced production information comes from the film's DVD commentary. Considering this film's massive popularity, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone who can verify this. The Legacy section does indeed strike me as unencyclopedic, but these sections often do focus more on pop culture shout-outs than I would like. We can rewrite that section to look more like Barbarella (film)#Aftermath and influence. The sourcing issues shouldn't be too hard to resolve. Again, the film's popularity should make replacing citations easy, even if it's a bit tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment sent some notifications out to old editors that were interested in this article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]