Talk:Paint Drying/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 21:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello @LunaEatsTuna! I'm going to jump on this one. Comments to follow soon in the table below :) Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 21:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @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♯4talk‽ 22:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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♯4talk‽ 23:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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♯4talk‽ 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @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♯4talk‽ 23:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
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
Lead
Overview
Production Background and conception Filming, editing and Kickstarter campaign
Classification, release and reception
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Lead sections Layout Words to watch
Fiction
List incorporation
|
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. |
|
![]() |
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). Boult, Adam (20 November 2015).
Ohlheiser, Abby (26 January 2016).
Kale, Sirin (26 January 2016).
Going to do a few more spot checks. Haines, Lester (23 November 2015).
Sandwell, Ian (25 January 2016). Simpson, Campbell (27 January 2016). New Zealand Herald. 26 January 2016 Butcher, Anne (May 2016). I'll stop here for now.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Boult, Adam (20 November 2015).
Vincent, Alice (26 January 2016).
Copyvio detector mainly flags the quotations used in the article.
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
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. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |