Talk:The Exigency
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- ... that the animated film The Exigency took thirteen years to make?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KBIF
Created by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Exigency/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)
- I created the article because I find that it passes WP:GNG. It's a film that took 13 years to make. Several reviews have been listed, two of which appear on Rotten Tomatoes, and I used interviews with the creator to expand the article. If you quick-fail the article for the probably paid reviews that's understandable, but the article passes WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:41, 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)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- C-Class Animated films articles
- Low-importance Animated films articles
- Animated films work group articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class Animation articles
- Low-importance Animation articles
- C-Class Animation articles of Low-importance
- C-Class American animation articles
- Low-importance American animation articles
- American animation work group articles
- C-Class Computer animation articles
- Low-importance Computer animation articles
- Computer animation work group articles
- WikiProject Animation articles