Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/1

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. Although a reworking of this article has started, GAR is not in a position to evaluate it. It is better to delist the article now per the comments below, and encourage renomination once the article has been reworked. Geometry guy 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has numerous issues and is currently tagged with 5 cleanup banners - therefore not only failing the GA criteria but also meeting the quick-fail criteria. Tags suggest the article: needs additional references (GACR 2), tone may be inapproprate (possibly GACR 4), needs to be expanded (GACR 3), and needs cleanup and a copyedit (GACR 1). — 97198   talk  13:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I concur with most of the concerns raised at the recent FAC discussion and suggest that if the article isn't improved in short order that it be de-listed. I hope that the article's editors are able to address the deficits and turn this into a truly Good Article. Majoreditor (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article suffers from multiple problems.
 * The prose fluctuates between mediocre and poor. An example: The film earned a major reaction in later weeks by word of mouth.
 * The article needs to be better referenced. I refer to the quality rather than the number of citations.
 * It also suffers from structural issues such as stubby sections and a dubious layout. The cast section is one example; it is placed too far forward in the article and is underdeveloped.


 * Delist: No way is this GA-quality.  The article contains multiple short, skimpy paragraphs which scream out for expansion.  The "Reception" section particularly needs to be fleshed out.  Also, the film had such a huge impact/influence on horror cinema that a "Legacy" section seems in order.  There are undoubtedly a multitude of reliable source references (books and magazine/newspaper articles) that can be easily accessed to assist in adding the necessary detail.  Once this article is expanded accordingly, we can worry about the prose and layout problems already noted.  As the article obviously requires a great deal of work, I suggest it be de-listed immediately.-Hal Raglan (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: You can delist it, if you want. I hope the article's future editors will make this a good article, as I've decided to take a break from editing this particular page. It's been fun while it lasted, but I may come back. --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. The article isn't quite up to GA standards per my comments above. I see scant evidence of progress. Let's de-list for now. Majoreditor (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist, per above comments and multiple cleanup banners. Nikki  311  19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist Per above comments. First, there is no way this can stay GA with those cleanup banners. Needs expansion, a complete copyedit and more references, at the least. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist Issues have still not been addressed, and the multiple-issue tag shows that it is not GA quality. This can definitely be improved and returned to GA status with a bit of work. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)