Talk:Ultime grida dalla savana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Ultime grida dalla savana has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Ultime grida dalla savana was selected as the Portal of Horror Horror-related article of the month for April 2008.

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. I don't know what the style guidelines are for WP:FILM, but is it common to put the year of release in brackets in the lead rather than stating "Ultime Grida dalla Savana [also know as blah blah blah] is a 1974 film..."?
  2. I have to say that I really feeling that this article is missing a very important part. Namely, what actually happens in the movie! There's references made about it throughout, but there's no actual description of the scenes, or even the important ones, in their own section in this article. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's no section on the content of the film itself; references are made throughout the article, but there's no central hub to connect. There's no "plot summary" section, though I hesitate to use that term since it's fairly inappropriate to describe this type of film. A "film content" section is needed to meet the "broadness of coverage" criteria.
  3. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
  4. I'm a little confused: "Only two DVD releases of Ultime Grida dalla Savana are legally available on the market, which are an uncut Japanese DVD released by Pioneer, a cut version released in the United States as part of the Grindhouse Experience box set and an Australian DVD from I-Entertainment." (Releases and sequels) Isn't that three releases?
  5. "Another uncut release is a Dutch VHS sold at various grey market websites." (Releases and sequels) requires a citation.
  6. "Morra went on to make one final Mondo film without Climati called The Savage Zone, while Climati later made the cannibal film Natura contro in 1988." (Releases and sequels) needs a citation, moreso for the first part, since that film doesn't have a Wikipedia article.

Normally I would outright fail an article that failed "broadness of criteria." Having seen your work on Cannibal Holocaust, which was amazing by the way, you're obviously no novice to this, so I'd like to hear your reasoning on why the film content section is absent. Also, since the rest of this article is so well done, you can almost undoubtedly address this concern within seven days. For that reason, I am putting the article on hold. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 02:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to comments on my talk page

Regarding #1, it should be fine the way it is, but that's something you might want to check out for FA status. Regarding #2, what I might suggest is, rather than saying "This happens and then this happens etc." just give a general overview of the film in its own section. Something along the lines of "The documentary consists of a number of scenes of violent death in Africa, intended to show blah blah blah blah. Some of the more notable scenes include blah blah blah." Obviously not like that, but hopefully you get the idea; a general overview and mention of a few of the key/most important/most well known scenes would be helpful. Doesn't have to be excessively long and doesn't have to cover every scene. Regarding #3, yes that's fine. Otherwise, everything looks good and I've updated review. Cheers, CP 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, since the concerns have not be addressed within the span of the hold, I'm going to have to fail the article for now. Once this issue is resolved, please renominate it, as I do believe that this article is very close to being a Good Article. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Cheers, CP 16:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review 2

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Since nothing other than the addition of the synopsis has been substantial changed since my last review, I will start this review where the last one left off. I am currently reading the synopsis. Cheers, CP 06:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. "(these scenes of African bush hunting were originally shot for the film Africa addio)." (Synopsis) requires a citation. So does its second incarnation "(these scenes of poaching were also originally shot for Africa addio)." later on.

Other than that, everything looks great. The synopsis is a bit long, and the FA reviewers might ask you to trim it, but I'm absolutely fine with it. I say leave it for now, because they may be fine with it too. To allow for these lines to be cited, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your hard work thus far. Cheers, CP 06:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Those two comments have citations now. And yes, I noticed that the synopsis is a bit long (around 948 words, I think...), but I don't expect this to ever be featured article status. There's virtually no information on the film's production, which is a vital component of an FA film article. Helltopay27 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's too bad, because I think it's a great article. In any case, it can, and now will, be a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)