This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Exigency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | The Exigency was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 1, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the animated film
The Exigency took thirteen years to make? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
MeegsC (
talk)
16:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Created by Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC).
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Colin M ( talk · contribs) 02:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is well-written and well-structured, however I have grave concerns about the sourcing. The production section is sourced to a combination of material from the official website and various articles from "Renderosity" magazine. I am not convinced this is a reliable, independent source, since it appears they will produce posts on demand for a fee (See e.g.
[1]), and it's not clear whether these sponsored posts are explicitly marked as such. The reception section is also sourced to websites that provide paid reviews on-demand such as
indyred and
uk film review. On these grounds, I'm inclined toward a quick fail. (I'm actually dubious as to whether this even passes
WP:GNG) But I want to give an opportunity to respond before I do so.
Colin M (
talk)
02:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a film that took 13 years to make.This is impressive, but doesn't have any bearing on WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). As for the RottenTomatoes indexed reviews, one is from "FilmThreat", which is also pay-to-play. The other is "The Independent Critic", which apparently does do paid reviews, but marks them as such. The review itself does not give an indication of being paid-for, though it does mention that the director "is actively seeking reviews for the film". I remain ambivalent on notability, but in any case, I'm going to close this review as I think it's far from meeting the verifiability and NPOV criteria of GACR. Colin M ( talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)