Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pulp Fiction

Pulp Fiction (film)[edit]

This article explains and diagrams the movie, very in-depth. Plenty of visual representation. --emc! ╬ (t a l k) 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment it has a {{unreferenced}} at the top of it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is very in-depth and covers many viewpoints. ReverendG 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Agree with Grafikm. This can't be featured as long as it has cleanup tags. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No inline citation. -- Миборовский 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as one of the most important American movies of the 1990s, certainly one we should have an FA on... but alas, this is full of rampant speculation and conjecture such as in the "Plot devices" section, as evidenced by the lack of sources, the tags requesting them (which have been up for a while). Not our best work. --W.marsh 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object no references gets a speedy object from me. Sandy 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object No references. Big ugly tag at the top of the article. Too much of the article consists of "trivia", quotes and lists of cultural influences.
'Object - which is a real shame because as has been said this is one of the greats and should be featured. THe thing is theres loads of good content but the lack of references (those tags all over the place just arn't good) and the general conjecture throughout spoils it. Oh and it could be alot shorter too. -- Errant^talk(formerly tmorton166) 19:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as per everyone else. No refs, Trivia section still in exsistence, and a shoddy cast section to boot. See Revenge of the Sith, Richard III (1955 film), or Casablanca (film) for ideas as how to improve. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]