Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Nightmare Before Christmas/1

The Nightmare Before Christmas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: I would normally award a barnstar to the saving editor's talk page, but the IP seems to have a dynamic address, so let me award it to them in spirit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Legacy" section is far too short and should be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and just drop this legacy section in its current state. It currently goes against MOS:POPCULT (Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth.) and WP:PROPORTION, (an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject). In short, these articles just mention that characters are mentioned or have extremely brief appearances in single episodes of a television series. Without context for these statements, they shouldn't be included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to tidy it up, but if anything, the merchandice and legacy sections are often citing YouTube, Toy Manfacturer websites, or books citing that they themselves exist with no context or third party notices. This section is a bit of a beast to re-write, but requires a lot of fixing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've already reviewed the article and added sources where there weren't any. I don't know if this is enough to save the article, but please let me know what you think about the sources I added and if they're reliable. 191.106.17.100 (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns remaining include "better source needed" tags, a "citation needed" tag that I added just now, some unreliable sources like IMDB, and poor formatting in the "Books, comics, and manga" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I'll take care of it, but first I want to know which sources are unreliable besides IMDB. If you give me a little more time before this closes, I can fix all these issues. But first, I'll contact user @Andrzejbanas: to see if he'd like to help me with this. 2803:1800:1110:556B:A1C5:44E8:7A96:F850 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. Here are some potentially unreliable sources:

"Carr, Kevin (November 29, 2013)" seems to be a blog. Done
"Korkis, Jim (September 5, 2018)." Seems to be a Disney consumer planner website with a blog. Done
"Henry Selick, Pete Kozachik" seems to be an IMDB/Wikipedia mess of a source that needs to be replaced Done The source is a DVD audio commentary featuring the film's directors. So I left it and removed the IMDB link
"Doombuggies." seems to be a personal blog. Done
""Tim Burton's 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' To Use 4D in Special Event". Geeksofdoom.com." seems to be a blog. Done
" "Disney Celebrates 30th Anniversary of "Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas"". www.businesswire.com." is a press release website and should probably be replaced. Done
"'The Nightmare Before Christmas - 3D' Dated and Detailed for Blu-ray 3D!". highdefdigest.com." No idea what highdefdigest is. Done
"Brizuela, James (July 4, 2023)." Appears to be a fan website. Done
" "New Disney Fine Art: Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas Limited Edition by Artist Jim Salvati". TechWhack." is a press release that should probably be replaced. Done

I'll stop there, I got to ref 64. It looks like there are lots of questionable sources in the article. I am happy to continue when the above are resolved, but I hope other editors working on this will also check the other sources before I do a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I'm letting you know that I've deleted the sources you showed me and reviewed the rest of the article, and the others are reliable. Let me know if there's another source of questionable quality, or we can close this discussion. 2803:1800:1351:783B:E537:2DD9:2B20:9791 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and this is what I found:

Ref 94 Moviehole: Not able to find editorial information about this site. Done
Ref 109 Craziestgadgets.com: This is a promotional site and probably not reliable. Done
Ref 110 Worldofmunchkin.com: Does not seem to be a reliable source. Done
Ref 133 Graphic Policy: Does not seem like a reliable source. Done
Ref 136 LaughingPlace.com: Does not seem reliable Done
Ref 138 "Hour of the Pumpkin Queen": Does not seem reliable Done

Those are my thoughts. Sorry for the delay. I did finish going through all the sources. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of my concerns are addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.