Talk:A Goofy Movie

A Goofy Movie has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 6, 2021. (Reviewed version).

A fact from A Goofy Movie appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 March 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that three-quarters of the animated film A Goofy Movie had to be reshot due to a single dead pixel on a faulty monitor, leading to a delayed release? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Goofy Movie.

Wikipedia

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: American / Films Low‑importance Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance). Disney Low‑importance Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy Low‑importance Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: American / Animated Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article is supported by the Animated films task force. United States: Animation / Cinema Low‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Animation portal This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives (Index)

1 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Goofy Movie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 11:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As fate would have it, I watched both Goofy Movies yesterday. I saw this as destiny pointing me to where I am needed, and will take on the review over the next day. Luckily, I have to supervise final exams for 6 hours straight, so count on me to hopefully finish my review very soon.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well-written? and 3. Is it broad in its coverage?

Lead

• animated directoral debut is a bit mileading, since he directed before. I would simply leave that part out and change it to "directed by Kevin Lima".
• would leave the dedication part out of the head section, mentioning it in the text is sufficient.
• in the production section, you mention that it was produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation, Walt Disney Television Animation, and Disney MovieToons, yet you mention only two of them in the lead.
• you list all actors and in the next paragraph list who reprised his role. Shorten his by writing "x, y, and z reprised their role from the show while a, b. and c voiced original characters" or something like that.
• the plot summary could be shortened as well. I would leave out the high school part and everything after fishing trip.
• Rewrite the last paragraph. It is unclear what the consequences of the "contractual obligation parts" are. I would write something along the lines of it received little promotion and subsequently underperformed at box office.
• I would mention the sequel in the very last sentence of the section.

So much for the lead.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• I would mention that Max fears turning into his father in the first sentence.
• I would point out that Goofy takes the trip because he fears for Max's future after the call from the principal.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voide cast

• Doesn't Goofy go by Goofy G. Goof in the series? Even if he is credited simply as Goofy, I would change this because he is referred to by his full name, same goes for Max.
• Maybe think about moving all minor characters to a single paragraph under the listing of the bigger characters.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

• I would change directoral debut to feature film directoral debut or something like that, as he has directed before.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it relevant that Campbell was just 17 at the time?

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You could go into detail into the design of Powerline's outfits, maybe there is information why they opted for the futuristic look.
• Is there information about Bobby? I found it interesting that they included an original character who seemed to have a lot of unique antics instead of another character from the series, maybe there is some information on that.
• Same goes for Roxanne.

Music

• I take it Burwell produced all songs in the track listing that have no writer/performer? Include him as a writer (and additional writers if there are any) and who performed them (likely some sort of Disney orchestra?).

Partly done Added Burwell as a writer but the performers are credited as "[instrumental]". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release

• I would rephrase the part about pan and scan, as it reads itself rather confusingly. Do you need to mention Cars and The Incredibles? I feel leaving that out and restructuring the rest a bit would make this much easier to read.
• I would mention the part about Katzenberg here, as it impacted the release, rather then the legacy. Also go into detail here, what is meant by contractual obligation and how did it impact the film/its release? That is really unclear as of yet.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• I would mention that it was not released theatrically in most oversea territories when talking about its grosses there.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You only give contemporary reviews. As far as I am aware of, he was viewed much more positively as time passed. Write a paragraph containing retrospective reviews if available.
• Maybe create a table containing the accolades/nominations in addition to the text, gives a better overview.

 Not done since it's only 3 nominations. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

This section needs the most work.

• move the sequel to an own section and give a brief overview over plot etc.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As mentioned earlier, move the entire Katzenberg stuff to release/reception and elaborate on it.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)

• That it was considered a box office disappointment contrasts with the "relative success" in the reception section. Move that information there and clarify that it underperformed in comparison to other Disney blockbusters.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)

• Start the section with something like "Over the years, the film established a cult following" or whatever, as paragraph 3 is the new paragraph 1.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would merge paragraphs 4, 5, and maybe 7, as they all concern themselves with Disney embracing the movie.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ducktales paragraph should be shortened, as it concerns itself with small easter eggs for most of the part.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is it for writing and broad coverage. Some fixing is needed, but nothing that isn't doable.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

Agree All sources are reliable and check out, I would suggest archiving some of them, especially from smaller outlets and sites that are known to delete content after a few years.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is it neutral?

Agree--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?

Agree unless Disney plans a live action reboot... ;) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated?

Agree Movie poster etc. are all fair use, so yes. You could add a picture of the cast/director whatever, but I don't think any of this is needed.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

All in all, the article has the potential to be a GA but needs some additional work/clean up.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second tier of remarks

I see you did most of the improvements already. However, I think you may have inadvertedly moved some information into the wrong sections:

1. you moved everything about Katzenberg into "Home media". I would rather dissolve that paragraph altogether, as some information here relates to release, other to reception and legacy. Move the information on sales and Pocahontas to "Box office" The information on Katzenberg could be the first sentence of "Theatrical release" or the last of "production". Everything relating to fandom/cult following I would rather include into "legacy".
2. In sequel, you mention Roxanne appearing in House of Mouse. Move that information to legacy, and if you have information on other major charaters reappearing elsewhere (except in the sequel of course), also include that in legacy.
3. In the sequel paragraph, I would also add that Max and his mates take part in the X Games, as it is a major aspect of the movie.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, the article has already improved. Ping me when you've finished everything relating to the first and second tier of remarks. I you don't find information on Bobby, Roxanne, or Powerline's design, that's not too big of a deal.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ: After a very long search on Google and a short one on the Open Library, I couldn't find any information on the characters that hadn't already been mentioned in the article. Anyway, here's a ping since most of your suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought that might happen, after all, the movie isn’t Frozen or The Lion King where every small aspect is discussed some place. I will take another thorough look tomorrow. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passed, good work on the article, maybe you also want to do the second one with all the information you've found so far you might be able to turn it into another GA.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2021 (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.

Article needs cleaned up

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've posted neutral notifications on the relevant WikiProjects for their thoughts on this. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unfortunately, the edits have just been reverted. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and I reverted it back. It was not vandalism. Mike Allen 12:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. It is not stable for now due to the major clean up process.
2. 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)[reply]