Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paint Drying/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 March 2023 [1].

Paint Drying

[edit]
Nominator(s): ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An independent filmmaker forced the British Board of Film Classification to watch paint dry for ten hours. I have exhausted all available sources I could find, including scraping TWL, and comparing this to other shorter film FAs (via Petscan) it looks suitable. This article became a GA on 6 January and has since been expanded nearly 3,000 bytes so hoping it qualifies :) ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 08:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "the BBFC rated it 'U' for 'Universal,'" - comma should be outside the quote marks
  • " indicating "no material likely to offend or harm."" - same here
  • "Charlie Shackleton (then known as Charlie Lyne)" - when is "then"?
  • "because Charlie Manson used Helter Skelter to justify murder?" - song title should be in quote marks
  • "According to Shackleton, his debut self-distributed film, Beyond Clueless, cost £867.60" - the film didn't cost this, the submission to the BBFC did
  • BBFC image caption needs a full stop
  • "It raised £961—worth 2 hours and 1 minute of footage—by 18 November" => "It had raised £961—worth 2 hours and 1 minute of footage—by 18 November"
  • "It was rated 15 for "very strong language."" - again, full stop should be outside quote marks
  • In fact, do a sweep for that generally - I see loads of cases where the punctuation should be outside the quotes
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: All done I believe; appreciate the comments! As for your third point, it was at the film's release… I am not sure when he changed his name, but thought it was worth noting for the reader as all sources refer to him as Lyne. How would you word it? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One outstanding comment is that the production section still starts off with "Charlie Shackleton (then known as Charlie Lyne)". As there's been no mention of any dates prior to this in the body, "then" is essentially meaningless. It would be better to say "Charlie Shackleton (known as Charlie Lyne from [whenever] to [whenever])". Hope that makes sense.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes sense. How does it look now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Valereee

[edit]
  • He had expected to see conflict between the BBFC examiners and the visiting filmmakers, however was surprised that there was no such resolution; Shackleton added that, on the contrary, many of the attending filmmakers seemed to be supportive of the BBFC. Maybe some clarification -- were these other independent filmmakers, or primarily large commercial ones (whose budgets wouldn't be meaninfully affected) who were supportive?
  • Although Shackleton had no plans for a wide theatrical release, he stated that he was in talks with a cinema in London about possibly showing the film Date context?
Valereee (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I believe I have addressed your second point; as for your first, the sources unfortunately do not say. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Valereee, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, @Gog the Mild! I feel like I'm just getting my feet wet here and am not sure what is actually required of me to support. The process still feels pretty opaque to me! :D When I review for AfC or DYK or GA, I'm basically responsible for the checking all criteria, but obviously that's not the process here. Am I to assume that because someone else has given a checkmark to a certain aspect, I should accept that, even if I don't have personal experience with that person's ability to check that thing? Or is my 'support' just for my own concerns being addressed? Sorry if I should have figured this out already, I've read a bunch of the pages but maybe need to go over again? Valereee (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. It can be a bit opaque. Hopefully a steep but short learning curve. I suggest that you ignore any other reviewer's comments. We reviewers get the big bucks for synthesising the screed of text that is an FAC into a single word. Either 1. Look at the FA criteria and tell us which ones, or which parts of which ones, you feel are satisfactorily addressed and/or are not met (support and oppose), Or 2. give a freeform summary such as "Support for prose", or "Support for MoS coverage - so far as I understand the MoS". Just putting "Support" will usually be taken to mean something like your being reasonably happy with criteria 1a, the second part of 1b, 1d, 1e, all of 4, and all of 2 with the proviso that no one actually has a full understanding on the whole of the MoS,
That help, or are you now totally confused? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review. I saw this in the FAC list, decided to read it, and then thought "since I've read the whole thing, I might as well review it".

Thank you so much for reading it! I hope you enjoyed it. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the interview in "Further reading" not included as a source in the article?
  • It is not an interview but rather an article written by Shackleton himself. His motivations and Paint Drying's filmmaking process were all covered well enough in other RS sources instead, which seemed like a better alternative to me than citing Shackleton directly to avoid possible bias. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to trust that there is nothing in that source that can be added to the article. If there is, I wouldn't mind it being used as as inline citation. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the websites used in the references are not archived. I suggest running IABot and archiving them.
  • The film's release date in the infobox is 26 January, but the article only mentions that it was rated as U on that date. Is there a source for the release date that can be placed in the article?
  • The lede says it was "produced, written, directed and shot by Charlie Shackleton." There's no credits section (it would probably be too short) but where in the lede does it say that he had all of these roles? (We know that it was shot and directed by Shackleton, and I think the reader can assume that he produced it, but the body doesn't have any information about him writing the work, and since it is a silent film about paint drying, is there actually a writer?)
  • "indicating "no material likely to offend or harm"." Since you are quoting the BBFC, I think this needs a citation.
  • WP:V policy says, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." MOS:LEDECITE, a guideline, says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Even though this is in the lede, I would still highly support a citation for the direct quote. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wait. Replies above. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, so I support. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC
Lead & IB
  • Technically the Country field isn't supported by the text – you could add
  • The film is listed by the BBFC and the BFI as being directed by Charlie Lyne, not Charlie Shackleton. The guidance at Template:Infobox film says "Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made"
  • I would go with the policy and use Lyne, then deal with it in the lead and body (ie. The lead can read produced and directed by Charlie Shackleton (under his former name Charlie Lyne), and have more or less the same explanation in the body. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBFC listing states the genre as "Documentary", which could be added
  • "hours worth" should be "hours' worth" (I see the same phrase is repeated elsewhere in the article)
Synopsis
  • "actually dries at the end of Paint Drying": you can replace the name with "the film" to stop it repeating. You can start the next sentence as "It".
Background and conception
  • "Shackleton has written": "He", rather than renaming
  • "censorship in the United Kingdom": shortened to UK
Filming, editing
  • Three more examples of United Kingdom that should be shortened to UK
Reception
  • "he stated on 25 January that": probably best to add the year as this is at the beginning of a section
Post-release
  • "a magazine published by Delhi Press": do we need to know this? I wouldn't expect to see the publisher shown in the sources, let alone the body
  • "dubbed": that's slang and should be replaced

I hope these are useful. All that, and I bet the BBFC watched it on fast forward... – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: They are very useful! Replies above. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 10:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All good. Short for a film article, but there's not anything more I thing could or should be added - it's probably going to be the only film FA without a plot section and cast list! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • What makes Lagier a high-quality reliable source for what it's being cited for?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • Be consistent in how you cite works with no named author or no provided publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I have addressed your latter two concerns; fixed the formatting for no named authors or publication dates and I decided to remove the publisher parameters from all citations for brevity—coupled with the archive URLs the citations were honestly really lengthy. As for Lagier, I could have sworn I read somewhere that he had a PhD in media studies, which I believe would make him a subject matter expert in this context (relating to a film). However, I cannot seem to find the source now; if I still cannot find it, I will replace the citations for Lagier with alternative RS sourcing. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 01:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have removed Lagier. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

This seems well on its way but having heard of the subject I couldn't resist sticking my oar in.

  • Do we really need four adjectives between "2016" and "film"? It's quite a common trait of Wikipedia articles to try to cram lots of information into the opening sentence but I think it hampers readability. If I came to the article cold, I have to read a date, a nationality (another thing WP articles tend to shoehorn into the first sentence, regardless of relevance), and three more adjectives before I learn what the subject is, which might determine whether I want to read the rest of the article or not.
  • Probably not. For film-related articles, most are generally structured this way; only when there are two or more nationalities is this not mentioned here. I agree three genres is a lot, so I have removed "independent" as less important. IMO "experimental protest" explains the film well enough. I reckon shortening it to just "protest" would not be as descriptive as Paint Drying is not a film film but rather an experimental work. Thoughts? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 12:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shackleton's name change isn't relevant in the lead (which is supposed to be an executive summary of the film); suggest either piping the link or just using the new name.
  • It was made as a protest Use active voice wherever possible.
  • sometimes prohibitive cost "sometimes prohibitive" needs a hyphen because you're using it as a compound adjective
  • mandatory classification requirement imposes "imposes a mandatory requirement" is a lot of ways to say the same thing
  • the English-language expression since this is the English-language Wikipedia and the expression is written in English, we can infer that it's English unless otherwise specified
  • The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), a non-governmental organisation, I'm guessing you took this from the article on the BBFC but the linked article mostly discusses NGOs in the sense of non-profits like aid agencies; in this sense the meaning is closer to Quango. I'd be tempted to remove the description and just stick with its remit as nomenclature of official bodies is a bit of a minefield.
  • a decade that began when I was 13 years old" You need a reference immediately after a quote. Ditto "reduce the sense of sadistic pleasure in inflicting violence
  • due to the cost being too high → either "due to the cost" or "because the cost was too high"
  • He finally conceived the idea to make a film "finally" is arguably editorialising; suggest dropping it
  • however was surprised that there was no such resolution "however" is a word to watch. It's doing nothing for you here; suggest replacing with "but". And what do you mean by resolution? As written, the article says he was expecting conflict but saw no resolution, which doesn't quite make sense.
  • He stated that the funds raised would be put towards the cost of the age classification If this isn't in doubt, you can lose the slightly weasel-y "he stated" (you need attribution like that for opinions and quotes but not normally for undisputed statements of fact even when they come from a primary source)
  • towards the cost of the age classification, with the final length of the film being Don't use "with" to connect two clauses like that. For two closely connected facts like this, just the comma is sufficient; for more distant connections or where the change of tense the "with" forces is undesirable, it's better to use a semicolon or split the sentence.
  • Shackleton told the Daily Telegraph that he hoped that crowdfunding capital T, as the definite article is part of the name.
  • over two consecutive days, with the majority being viewed on 25 January same issue with "with" as above
  • "14-hour director's cut is presumably forthcoming" needs a ref
  • Is there anything relevant to say about what Shackleton has done since? Or on his opinions more broadly? There might not be sources for it, but I'd be curious to know whether he objects to film classification in general or just the way the BBFC does it.
  • Why is the one "further reading" not cited as a reference?
  • There are better sources available to cite that IMO give a more critical and analytical view on his opinions. In any case, I actually found this citation quite late into writing Paint Drying so everything in it was already mentioned in the article and cited by these more critical sources. Going through the source again, there is nothing to be added from it. The first paragraph is a brief overview of the film; paragraphs two and three talk about the Fight Club censorship stuff—already in the article and cited—four gives a history of the BBFC (not all that relevant IMO); five and six further criticises every aspect of the BBFC and Shackleton mentions other examples of banned films; six is the "Helter Skelter" murder quote already cited etc. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 12:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the relevance of somebody else's YouTube video of drying paint?
  • Have any other protest films been submitted to the BFC? Have there been any comparisons between them and Paint Drying?
  • Did the BBFC defend itself against the protest other than the quote about reviewing it like any other film?
  • They did give a statement to some news agency, but it was removed by me on the recommendation of the GA reviewer as generic corporate speak that barely talks about the film itself, to which I agreed. You can see it here under "Classification, release and reception" (as the section was then known). Am interested in hearing your thoughts. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 12:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could distil that down to a couple of sentences, eg: "With regards to the motives behind making the film [...] the BBFC was set up in 1912 by the film industry itself, as an independent body to bring a degree of uniformity to the classification of film nationally. The BBFC is a non-profit organisation that works to protect children, from content which might raise harm risks and to empower the public, especially parents, to make informed viewing choices." And maybe add separately the bit about its only income being from the charges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I appreciate the review! Responses above. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with all the genres etc being mentioned, I just don't think we should shoehorn them all into the first sentence. Removing one of the adjectives is definitely an improvement. You're still using passive in at least a couple of places where active voice would be better (It was made in protest, It was rated 15). I'm not sure "altercation" is the right word; it makes think of a fist fight rather than an academic disagreement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of these should hopefully be fixed, although I am unsure about the genres. I actually agree with your concerns but looking at other film FAs they have similar layouts as this. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few minor edits but I think we're good to go now. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paint_Drying/archive1&oldid=1146292658"