Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sleepy Hollow (film)/1

Sleepy Hollow (film)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sleepy_Hollow_(film)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delist Sourcing and prose issues still apparent. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Plot" and "Cast" sections are currently completely unreferenced, and I have therefore placed the unreferenced section templates on them. This brings it under the "Immediate failure" criterion of the Good article criteria, so the issue either needs to be resolved or the article needs to be delisted as a GA. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The plot section of a work of fiction usually does not require citation, per MOS:PLOTSOURCE: the film itself is assumed to be the source. I personally try to provide references where possible to avoid any potential for conflict, but it isn't a GA-pass criterion. The sourcing for the cast section is a concern, but one that should be a lot easier to resolve. Vanamonde (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ah OK, thank you. I wasn't aware of the MOS:PLOTSOURCE allowance, but I guess that does make sense. I've removed the orange tag from that section. Hopefully the cast can be dealt with fairly easily then, and we can close this quickly. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically the cast list can be covered by the film itself. It is statements about character motivations like An orphan who looks towards Ichabod as a father figure after his own father is murdered by the Horseman and extra info like Tim Burton and Michael Gough had previously worked together on Batman and Batman Returns, with Michael Gough portraying Alfred Pennyworth which really need sourcing. I might see what I can find. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added some sources, but it was pretty lackluster to be fair. I have never seen the movie so just went off a few reviews and they all pretty much concentrated on the first three. I am not going to do that for all the minor characters. I guess someone could remove the descriptors or else look for more obscure sources. Probably neutral on whether this is delisted or not. It is pretty standard for a lot of film articles, but personally I find the overquoting in the development and reception sections a bit too overdone. The reception section is quite average as it is basically bullet pointed quotes minus the bullet points. Thinking about it more I would see this falling into delist territory as is. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)