Talk:Ultime grida dalla savana

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#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): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: </div>
Comments:
#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..."?
#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.
#All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
#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?
#"Another uncut release is a Dutch VHS sold at various grey market websites." (Releases and sequels) requires a citation.
#"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Response to comments on my talk page 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#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): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Review 2