Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Who Framed Roger Rabbit/archive 2

Who Framed Roger Rabbit edit

This article has been submitted before. Since it's last submission it has undergone several substantial rewrites. It is now a very thurough article on a very important film in animation history. --The_stuart 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Article does not have many references and inline citations, especially when needed, and has a great deal of weasel words. Some examples:

"The lack of question mark in the title is allegedly due to a superstition that films with a question mark in the title do badly at the box office." -- Alleged by who? Also, a very awkward sentence.
"While Who Framed Roger Rabbit is considered a modern film classic" -- By who?
"The film's finale, during which its main characters are essentially tied to a rope waiting to be sprayed by a hose, was cited as being weak and unimaginative." -- Again, by who?
"Disney allegedly nixed the idea, most likely believing the idea to be overkill" -- Is this opinion?
"...and some animators and animation artists have cited the extra movement as unnecessary and distracting." and "Many film buffs label Jessica Rabbit a "Frankenstein" of film goddesses..." and "some people feel that the tone of the film deviates..." -- Another weasal word example, who are "some" animators or the "many" film buffs or "some" people?

And so on. Right now, the article has too many uncited opinions and allegations, weasel words, and facts which are without references.--Ataricodfish 05:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-There are too many one-two sentence paragraphs and not enough transition. I also disagree with Ataricodfish's comment that the title should be changed to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. The movie's official title doesn't have a question mark on it. Osbus 17:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When did I say that a question mark should be in the title? I was pointing out the weasal word in that sentence, that "allegedly" movies don't have question marks in it for profit reasons, when there's no source as to who alleges this. And the sentence is very awkwardly written, repeating the phrase "question mark in the title" twice in one short sentence. I stand by my objection.--Ataricodfish 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...I can't read. Sorry 'bout that, sir (or Miss).Btw, I agree with you. -Osbus 01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Just thought I was doing something wrong there for a second when I read your comment. :) --Ataricodfish 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object for now. Needs a lot of references and inline citations, especially the "Critical reaction" and "Legacy" sections. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, for now as well. References, please! You can even provide footnotes with further information on things not affecting the understanding of the subject, like I've demonstrated. Also, it's missing some details, like the original name. -- user:zanimum