# Talk:A Goofy Movie

I checked the article to see if there are reliable sources; a lot of the citations used are either unreliable or questionable, so I improved it on an edit. However, I feel like this article needs to be reassessed to make sure it still meets the Good article criteria because it has been nearly five years since it became a Good article, and I don't think it's enough to be a Good article for now. It needs major cleanup to add reliable, verifiable sources. Plus, the Legacy section is a mess (at least in my opinion, but I cleaned a majority of it up, including removing sources that are deemed unreliable or questionable and adding templates if a better sources or a citation is needed). Of course, I can improve it to attain the status, but for right now, it looks like a mess and isn't at its best.
If the edit is undone, that's fine, but I just wanna make sure there isn't going to be a problem when improving the article since the article still attains the Good article status for right now. Aubreeprincess (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Edit: I looked at the talk page and saw a GA review. On whether the sources are reliable or not, I have to disagree. Several of them are unreliable and questionable, but here a few examples. YouTube is generally a unreliable source because social media sources are self-published, and they are generally unacceptable sources, meaning that any YouTube sources had to be removed. I removed them on my major edit. There is a Forbes article that was sourced, but I had to remove citations with the source because according to a list of perennial sources that are reliable, unreliable, and deprecated, Forbes sources that are written by contributors are generally unreliable sources (articles written by its staff are reliable though). Citations of that source and the source itself were also removed on my major edit. Several Disney related sources are also removed because they are most likely self-published, which they are generally limited with rare exceptions (if used carefully). Because of this major effect, I added templates for whether additional citations are needed, a better source is needed, or a citation is needed. That is enough that the article might not attain its Good article status for now.
And I agree, the Legacy section needs the most work, but however, it was a mess ever since it attained its status, so I cleaned it up in my major edit. It's not at its best, but it looks better than it did before (in my opinion). It still needs more clean up though. Everything else looks fine. So yeah, I am talking about it in case someone does not agree with the edit I made so far. Aubreeprincess (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I've posted neutral notifications on the relevant WikiProjects for their thoughts on this. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for doing it! This will help improve the article. And the article can be delisted from Good article status if needed. ;) Aubreeprincess (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the edits have just been reverted. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
and I reverted it back.  It was not vandalism. Mike Allen  12:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Of course, someone thought my bold edits that were in good faith were vandalism, most likely because I cleaned up so much that I removed thousands of characters. I hope there is not going to be a disruptive conflict because my job is to improve articles in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Why would someone think I'm vandalizing an article by the way? Aubreeprincess (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Update: We can keep this in Good article status for now because I majorly improved this article. It can be delisted if needed but it looks better than it did before. It's not eligible as a featured article yet according to the criteria for a few reasons:
It is not stable for now due to the major clean up process.
It has to be well-researched with high-quality reliable sources. I either replaced a lot of unreliable and questionable sources with reliable sources or added tags for whenever a citation, a better source, or additional citations are needed in my edits. However, it would not be eligible because the remaining sources would either need to be replaced with a high-quality source or the information would need a high-quality source. Otherwise, if there is no high-quality source found, the information is required to be removed.
Otherwise, it would be nice for this to become a featured article at some point because despite the film being low-importance, this film is beloved by fans and has since been a prominent Disney film. Besides, the film turned 30 years old back in April this year. This is just my opinion. But don't worry about it becoming a featured article for right now. It probably will be soon, but just not right now. Aubreeprincess (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)