Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2012 (film)/1

2012 (film)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/2012_(film)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Withdrawn by nominator AIR corn (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this passed in the first place as the "Plot section" does not have one reference.Moxy (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I quote WP:FILMPLOT: "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Chris857 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW very interesting - never noticed that others had no refs. This would explain all the OR you see in movies here on Wiki. Ok I guess i will withdraw this and fix the article myself.Moxy (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the entirety of WP:FILMPLOT to understand why we do this. I disagree with you that this approach "explains" original research in film articles. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically you can describe what happens, but not interpret what happens. If there are interpretations in a plot then they should be moved to another section and attributed to someone (or removed completely). I have not watched the movie so have no desire to read the plot, but if there are no other concerns I will close this. AIR corn (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)