Talk:24 Hour Psycho

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by LunaEatsTuna (talk). Self-nominated at 01:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/24 Hour Psycho; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article expanded on 28 May; while the new version is more than five times longer than the previously existing one, a fair amount consists of verbatim quotes that by my understanding of the DYK rules do not count towards fivefold expansion, and discounting those it comes up just shy of the mark by my count. I see that this is also currently a WP:Good article nominee, so here's what I'll do: I will review the GAN—if it's successful, I'll request a new reviewer for the DYK nomination. If the GAN is not successful but the article is expanded further to such an extent that it meets the fivefold expansion mark within a week, I'll approve the DYK nomination (assuming everything else is okay, of course).

On with the DYK review: All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for. There are no obvious neutrality issues. Earwig reveals no copyvio, but there is some WP:Close paraphrasing. The hook is both cited and interesting. QPQ has been done. Some comments about the content:

  • Noting both the frame rate of two per second and the frame duration of half a second is a tad redundant, I would think.
  • The second paragraph in the "Background" section is basically all verbatim quotes from the source or WP:Close paraphrasing thereof. I would just use a {{quote box}}.
  • Brown also claimed that as a substantial part of Douglas' work, 24 Hour Psycho has been "shown all over the world" – I would parse this use of "as" as "it has been shown all over the world, as has a significant proportion of Douglas' other creations", but what the source says is "The renown of 24 Hour Psycho has made it a substantial part of Douglas's biography [...]", in other words saying that it is "a substantial part" rather than has similarities with a substantial part.
  • two side-by-side projections of 24 Hour Psycho—one running forwards and the other backwards—until both films meet in the middle for an identical, one-second shot – I would say this is WP:Close paraphrasing of the source's "two side-by-side projections of 24 Hour Psycho, with one running forward and one running backward, until both films meet in the middle for an identical, one-second shot", but it's more like an unattributed quote.

Ping LunaEatsTuna. TompaDompa (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reviewed the WP:Good article nomination and closed it as successful, so this needs a new, uninvolved reviewer. TompaDompa (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cleared GA on 10 June, after being posted, so I'm going to go with "inside time frame". Hook is interesting and directly cited, and the only close quoting is actual quotes. Long enough, well cited, GTG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:24 Hour Psycho/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. See Template:Did you know nominations/24 Hour Psycho. TompaDompa (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • The article relies rather heavily on verbatim quotes. I would try to do with fewer and/or shorter ones.

Lead[edit]

  • two side-by-side projections of 24 Hour Psycho—one running forwards and the other backwards—until both films meet in the middle for an identical, one-second shot – I would say this is WP:Close paraphrasing of the source's "two side-by-side projections of 24 Hour Psycho, with one running forward and one running backward, until both films meet in the middle for an identical, one-second shot", but it's more like an unattributed quote. This recurs in the body.

Synopsis[edit]

Background[edit]

Release and reception[edit]

  • Brown also claimed that as a substantial part of Douglas' work, 24 Hour Psycho has been "shown all over the world" – I would parse this use of "as" as "it has been shown all over the world, as has a significant proportion of Douglas' other creations", but what the source says is "The renown of 24 Hour Psycho has made it a substantial part of Douglas's biography [...]", in other words saying that it is "a substantial part" rather than has similarities with a substantial part.
  • In 2010, Gordon created a second installation entitled 24 Hour Psycho Back and Forth and To and Fro – this source says 2008.
  • I'm missing the detail that the two screens showing 24 Hour Psycho Back and Forth and To and Fro are each other's reflections both in time and space.
  • I'm missing a (brief) mention of 5 Year Drive-By, which Gordon described as "something of a companion piece" to this film.
  • The point made by https://books.google.com/books?id=tXmoBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT89 contrasting Hitchcock disallowing entering showing of Psycho partway through and the necessity of doing so for 24 Hour Psycho is, I think, an interesting one that should probably be included.

Summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See my comments above.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig reveals no overt copyvio, but there is some WP:Close paraphrasing. After further editing, it seems to fall just barely on the right side of close paraphrasing to me.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    See my comments above. Examining the sources cited in the article and conducting a cursory search for additional sources reveals that there is a fair amount that should be covered, but isn't. It is likely that there are even more aspects like this than the ones I've brought up above. After expansion, this issue has been resolved.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    There are no obvious neutrality issues.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The sole image uses a license that is acceptable per WP:CFAQ.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Honestly, I think this was nominated prematurely. I have serious concerns about missing aspects. After much further editing, the article is up to the WP:Good article standards.

Ping LunaEatsTuna. TompaDompa (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review! I am on a trip right now but I will be back tomorrow evening to get started on this. Thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 02:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: It was definitely a premature nomination—so I thank you very much for your patience and taking the time to give me those sources. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns except for "24 Hour Psycho Back and Forth and To and Fro are each other's reflections both in time and space"; which source says this? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 01:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gagosian Quarterly: two identical screens installed side by side, with Douglas's film playing in full on each: forward on one, backward on the other, with one flipped left to right such that—at exactly twelve hours in—they present the same images, mirrored, in a kind of exquisite, time-limited film version of a Rorschach inkblot test. TompaDompa (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is everything alright now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, but we're definitely getting there. I've updated some of my comments above and added strikethrough markup to resolved issues. I will have to take a look at the brand-new "Themes and analysis" section and survey the sources more closely to make sure its alright and doesn't omit any major aspects. TompaDompa (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There we go, the article passes. Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:24_Hour_Psycho&oldid=1196982519"