Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cool World/1

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

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo citation (#1), Metacritic (#24), CinemaScore (#25) are incomplete references.
I removed a sentence from the lede which referenced a not elaborated-on acronym (WGWA) and had a [citation needed]. It seemed irrelevant since this fact was not in the body of the article.
DVD Verdict (#6), Dies Irae (#9), Soundtrack Collector (#10), Music from the Movies (#12), Lambiek.net (#21) do not appear to be RSes
"Reception" section is a trainwreck. Each review is on its own line, making it read like a list, and the whole section is structured as "X said Y, Z said A, B said C." I think it also suffers from overquoting. Also many of the reviews are dead links.
The claim of a Razzie Award is vague (what year? what was the award for?) and is unsourced.

GA was in 2007, last GAR was in 2009. I think it's clear that maintenance has slipped here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section clearly needs clean-up, but that could be done in a handful of edits. The rest of the article is a surprisingly good standard for a 2007 GA. It looks fine. Just FIX the reception, it shouldn't be much harder than opening a GAR was. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with broken citations, unreliable sources, over-quoting, and unsourced content still remain though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]