Talk:Timelapse of the Future

Reception
The reception section seems to include quite a bit WP:USERGENERATED ratings, which are not WP:RELIABLE. These should probably be removed. Reviews from bloggers are not normally acceptable either. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited. Thanks!  Gerald WL  08:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't want to jump in and try to do it myself because I'm not familiar with this filmmaker.
 * It is unusual but it does seem like there might be acceptable in this case to list the number of Youtube hits and likes, but I'm not sure of turning that into a "97.3% approval rating" is a reasonable WP:CALC or contrived WP:SYNTHESIS. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Revenues
There are few problems I'm going to try and breakdown and explain that I don't think could be adequately explained in an edit summary, or even a few edit summaries.

In the intro/lead the sentence "Grossed more than any other of his works in approximate," doesn't really make sense. I know basically what the sentence is trying to say but it not a clear or well written. I would cut this sentence fragment out maybe add something else in later in a separate clearer sentence.

Also "grossed" does not seem like the best way to to phrase this estimated revenue information. I think it would be best not to use the "gross" field in the Infobox. This is not a box office gross, in the sense intended by Template:Infobox_film, (from public screenings, or a theatrical run). This is more like home video revenues or VOD revenues (which are not normally listed in the Infobox).

The Reception section, includes the following sentence (x), which I suggest rephrasing (to y):
 * (x) It will be able to generate USD23,600-188,500 in CPM according to Social Blade, making it Boswell's video to generate the most money.
 * (y) As of November 11, 2020, based on the number of views the film has received, analytics company Social Blade estimated revenues of $24,000 to $190,000.

It could be rephrased in other ways, but the tense is wrong, the use of an unexplained acronym (CPM) even if wikilinked is not good either. It is probably true that this was Boswell's most successful video, but the text should not jump to that conclusion either (without comparison to his other works we should not assume). Also that earnings estimate is a very broad possible range, it is more than a bit vague. It might be better to say something like "estimated revenues of over $20,000". This is quite different from a regular film article, maybe there are examples of other successful YouTube films that this article should be following?

The article isn't locked, and I could make these changes myself but I didn't want to make any complicated changes (or deletes) without explaining them first, and risk accusations of disruptive editing. If others are willing to improve the article that's fine by me, but I will try and fix it myself later if others don't do it before then.

TLDR: "Gross" needs rephrasing. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did all but the infobox one. I believe it's fine to put that estimation there and it doesn't seem like following what the infobox specifically said is needed, and it 🇪🇪 is given, so can't really see any problem with that.  Gerald WL  09:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I remembered to check back and see if I needed to do any work on this and was ready to go but I'm glad to see that wont be necessary. You've certainly improved it enough to address my main concerns and hopefully it will make more sense to readers than when I read it. Except for removing the figures from it from the infobox...
 * I've seen editors get very annoyed and delete figures from the Infobox because they did not literally represent "box office gross" because a film was not shown in theaters. Then again I've seen other editors put home video revenues in the Infobox or do some very dubious calculations to otherwise inflate the Infobox figure (some of pandemic box office gross figures are very misleading because it is hard to know if they are including only the revenue from drive-in, or VOD or what). What really bugs me is when editors make all kinds of efforts to include weird figures in the Infobox (budget or gross) but fail to make the effort to explain somewhere in the article body what those figures actually mean. So because there is a footnote and some text in the article body explaining what the figures mean, I'm not going to belabor the point. (You could always ask Project Film for an opinion.) I made a minor edit, but I think I'm all done. Thanks. -- 109.78.194.234 (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)!
 * No worries! Thank you too for bringing this up.  Gerald WL  06:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)