Talk:The Exigency/GA1

GA Review
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. ), 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)