Talk:Paint Drying/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 21:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @LunaEatsTuna! I'm going to jump on this one. Comments to follow soon in the table below :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 21:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEatsTuna, hello again :) I've completed the initial review so will put the article on hold for now. Do let me know if you have any questions about my comments! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 22:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unexpectedlydian: Thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed everything you mentioned except the following three items. Regarding your first point on the infobox, I have removed his credit as writer and producer but believe the other three should suffice—director (self-explanatory), cinematographer (he did film it) and editor (he edited the final product together before submission). Most film articles I have looked at as examples for Paint Drying include such credits for independent filmmakers who did everything themselves. Plus it is still equally as informative IMO. I agree with your point regarding the writing and producing—the film has none nor has it been distributed elsewhere to justify the latter credit. Regarding the budget, I just added (Kickstarter) in small text which I think will be informative enough for the majority of readers? Finally, regarding your copyvio concerns with "Two BBFC examiners […]" I tried a few sentences but was embarrassingly unable to find a better alternative that looked good enough. The statement is pretty cut and dried after all. Could I trouble you with helping find a better sentence?—sorry. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 23:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEatsTuna Brilliant, thank you for responding so quickly! I will have a look at everything tomorrow and let you know how I get on. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 23:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again :) I agree with your first two points above. Regarding your third point, I have reworded that sentence in the article. I'm happy to pass the article now, well done! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Infobox Is it necessary to include "Charlie Shackleton" as director, writer, producer, cinematographer and editor? (Especially writer as there's no dialogue). I think Director would suffice, maybe producer as well. ~~In the budget section could we add "raised via Kickstarter" or something similar?~~ Lead Shackleton made the film in order to force the BBFC to watch all ten hours in order to give the film an age rating classification. I'd suggest removing the repetition of "in order to" in this sentence. ~~and opened a Kickstarter campaign in order to pay the BBFC's per-minute rate for a film as long as possible. And remove the "in order to" in this sentence.~~ Overview This section would probably be more focussed and make more sense if the first sentence was move to the end of the paragraph. The sentence could be rephrased to say The film gets its title from the English language expression "like watching paint dry", which refers to something very tedious or boring. Production Background and conception Y Filming, editing and Kickstarter campaign ~~First three sentences all begin with "Shackleton", maybe one could start with a "he".~~ I have never heard the word "netizen" before, which - given its definition - surprises me! Given that the accompanying source does not say "netizen", I'd personally suggest changing it. Even just to "someone", or "someone unrelated to the campaign" if that's true. ~~On what he hoped to achieve with the film, Delete this bit, it's not needed for the sentence to make sense.~~ Classification, release and reception Shackleton submitted the film as a Digital Cinema Package (DCP) to the BBFC for classification; it was received on 20 January. The DCP was 310 gigabytes in size. Can we tighten this up a bit? I don't think the detail about when they received the package is necessary. Maybe Shackleton submitted the film as a 310 gigabyte Digital Cinema Package (DCP) to the BBFC for classification. ~~On 1 March 2016, Paint Drying was subjected to a video essay Think this should be "was the subject of" instead.~~ ~~Academic Arina Pismenny Academic should be lowercase.~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sections Y Layout Y Words to watch ~~As per MOS:SAID, please change The A.V. Club theorised, and British magazine Dazed joked. "Said" is fine.~~ Fiction N/A List incorporation N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All references and sources are in the appropriate location.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	As per some recent discussion over at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023, I will not be checking every source. I have selected approximately 10% of sources to spot-check. Loughrey, Clarisse (26 January 2016). Y Boult, Adam (20 November 2015). ~~exemption from the local council authority I don't think council authority is the correct wikilink here. I think it should be local authority.~~ Ohlheiser, Abby (26 January 2016). At the time, the BBFC charged a flat rate of £101.50 per film, plus an additional £7.09 for every minute of length. This links more to criteria 1, but I think this sentence can be rephrased to more accurately reflect what the article says. For example: In 2015, it cost £101.50 plus £7.09 per minute of runtime to have a film reviewed by the BBFC. ~~terrible for British film culture This should be in quotation marks.~~ Shackleton's post received hundreds of comments within a day, and became the most popular post on the subreddit. Can't find this info in the source. It think it might be from Haysom, Sam (26 January 2016) (ref 27) instead? Kale, Sirin (26 January 2016). he ultimately decided against it as he thought it would have diluted the point of the film. "Diluted" is quite a specific/unique term to use here, and I see it's a direct quotation. Maybe consider adding quotation marks or rephrase, such as he thought it might have retracted from the point of the film. Going to do a few more spot checks. Haines, Lester (23 November 2015). It hit £4,000 on 23 November. Being very picky here, but the source (from 23 November) says that he had already "thundered past £4,000", which suggests it might have hit that amount prior to the article being published? Maybe change to By 23 November it had hit £4,000. Sandwell, Ian (25 January 2016). Y Simpson, Campbell (27 January 2016). Y New Zealand Herald. 26 January 2016 Y Butcher, Anne (May 2016). Y I'll stop here for now.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Content from spot-checks that there has been no OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Boult, Adam (20 November 2015). Tiny bit of close paraphrasing that I'd suggest changing out of an abundance of caution (also flagged by copyvio detector). Source: All the money raised by this campaign (minus Kickstarter's fees) will be put towards the cost of the certificate, so the final length of the film will be determined by how much money is raised here. Article: He stated that all the money raised from the campaign would be put towards the cost of the age classification, so the final length of the film would inevitably be determined by how much money was raised from the campaign. Vincent, Alice (26 January 2016). There is close paraphrasing here which I'd suggested rephrasing. Source: Two BBFC examiners watched the first nine hours of Paint Drying on January 25, the remaining 67 minutes the next day... Article: the two examiners watched the first 9 hours of the film on 25 January and finished the remaining 67 minutes the following day. I have changed to: "Due to the length of the film, BBFC examiners split their watch time into two sessions over two consecutive days, with the majority being viewed on 25 January." Copyvio detector mainly flags the quotations used in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Happy from reviewing sources that the article addresses the main points of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The quote from BBFC in Classification, release and reception can be completely cut in my opinion. As its a corporate statement in corporate-speak, it doesn't say much anyway. The previous sentence, In response to the protest, the BBFC stated that it would classify the film as it would any other submission, is enough I think.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Majority of recent edits are by nominator and are constructive.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged with copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant with suitable captions (and alt descriptions which is lovely to see!).
	7. Overall assessment.