| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because why not
Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I've looked through the article and here's what I found:
- Lead and infobox could be expanded more.
- A image of the poster could help, if possible.
- Premise could use some expansion (go into detail of this 'struggle').
- ^Production: How did this come into fruition.
- ^Reception: Add. reviews could help boost this article a little.
- Citations need to include the writer of the article if shown in the link (last= and first=), The work it came from along with the publisher (which you have in the citation), and the date you referenced the source.
It's going to take a long time for this article to upgrade from stub class but if you put the effort into it, I can see this as a start-class quality article. DepressedPer (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)