Talk:I Drink Your Blood/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting! Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if four paragraphs is too many for the lead? Also, the third paragraph seems to be ordered oddly; release is mentioned twice.
 * 1970 or 1971?
 * Repetition of "cult member" in the plot; also, why "apparently" raped? The line before, you say she was raped.
 * What has bought up the town? As it reads now, it's the dam, but I'm assuming you mean the crew? Or do you mean the owners of the dam?
 * Be consisted in how you refer to Doc Banner - Doc or Banner?
 * "Incited Sue-Lin, Rollo murders fellow cult member Shelly." I don't follow.
 * "A curious Carrie attacks the homeowner with a knife." In what sense is she curious?
 * What's your source for the cast list?
 * You have several sentences (including a quote) that are not that well attributed in the distribution section - just some references at the end of the paragraph. Also, I'd mention a paragraph break after the mention of the Guilds.
 * "a disease that attacks the central nervous system, driving victims mad and homicidal" Really? I trimmed this from the lead. Not only is it informal, but I'm not sure it's accurate - at the very least, it's insensitive.
 * I feel like you tell the same story about Gross being pitched a film called Phobia and approving it twice. I appreciate that they are at different stages of production, but could you check your sources to see if there's been a muddle-up?
 * "Many critics have cited Bhaskar's performance as Horace Bones as being one of the film's major assets." Many, but you cite only one. Does this belong in the casting section?
 * "Bhaskar would continue his work as a professional dancer until a 1977 accident while performing a difficult manoeuvrer paralyzed him from the waist down" Relevance?
 * I'd include the fact Farber was Gross's wife in the article proper. Are either of them worth a redlink?
 * There's too much going on in the first sentence of the filming section

Stopping there. Please check my edits so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Author's response

 * Looking over the review, I will address the question you have on certain issues as well as some of my own. The reason for the reference in the cast section was only meant for Lynn Lowry who was uncredited in the film. The mentionings of the disease was a quote from the writer/director, however factual or fictional, was just to show the inspiration in their own words. Mentionings for Bhaskar continuing his dancing career was a continuation of the mentioning of him being a dancer, and the impact it (the film) had upon him.

My questions are this, what do you mean by "You have several sentences (including a quote) that are not that well attributed in the distribution section - just some references at the end of the paragraph"?

I have also made the following corrections:
 * Fixed lead section
 * Clarified plot
 * Limited the number of mentionings of the film's original title.
 * Rewrote lead sentence of Filming section.
 * Clarified release date.
 * The note on Farber moved to the main body of the article rather than a footnote.

Hope this helps.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: By "distribution", I meant "development". The referencing for the second paragraph could be much clearer; especially for the quotes. As for the disease issue: If you're quoting the director, so be it, but perhaps a direct quote would show that we're not necessarily endorsing the claim. And I'm not necessarily sold on the idea that we need details about Bhaskar's subsequent career, but let's park that for now. Moving forward, perhaps it'd be better to reply to my bullets individually, so we can keep track of what is resolved and what isn't! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Although the film was marketed under the now-infamous title I Drink Your Blood, director Durston had originally intended to release the film under the title Phobia or Hydro-Phobia" Another mention of this; this sentence and the one prior to it feel a little out-of-place. And what makes the title infamous? And when is "now"?
 * Do we need the list of all these one-off screenings? Is it that unusual for old horror films to be rescreened like this?
 * "The film's original cut was released by Cheezy Flicks on Oct 25, 2005." On DVD, I assume?
 * "The Encyclopedia of Horror said that "as the film now stands what looks like it might have been a raw, ferocious thriller has become a frustrating exercise in splicing, incessantly building up to scenes of bone-crushing horror and violence which never actually happen."" Could you cite the authors, rather than just the book? (Also, is that the correct name of the book?)
 * Is Lowry in the remake of The Crazies or the original? What's your source for the claim? I wonder if the paragraph on the other films could be streamlined a little?
 * What does it mean to update violence?

Thanks for the clarification. I have made the following edits to the article:


 * Rewrote the second paragraph of the Development section.
 * Removed Bhaskar's subsequent career info
 * Removed rabies definition.
 * Removed original title mentioning from the development section.
 * Clarified Cheezy Films releasing as DVD format.
 * Moved film festival releases from 2019 into the Legacy section, as it was in celebration of the film.
 * Names authors of The Encyclopedia of Horror Movies''
 * Clarified Lowry's appearance in the original Crazies film and not the remake.

Hope this clears everything up.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Put update violence sentence as a partial quote.

Looking at sourcing now... I've messed around with the formatting. It's not perfect, but good enough for GA status. This is coming together nicely. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on Cinepassion... It looks like the author is a (semi-)professional critic, but it's still self-published.
 * What makes elitisti.net a reliable source?
 * What about Destroy the Brain?
 * Film Monthly?
 * What is the entry in the "sources" section adding? Perhaps it could be incorporated or added to a further reading section if reliable, or removed if not reliable.
 * I've added two discussions in a further reading section. If you can incorporate it, that'd be great; but if not, it's fine as further reading.

Couple more quick thoughts:
 * The fact that this is a film about hippies isn't really mentioned.
 * There's some useful (if brief) analysis in Our Old Monsters, which I will also add to further reading.

Response Updated
Thanks for the heads up on those sources. I looked over them and made some adjustments. As far as the Elitisti reference goes, The film's released at the Night Visions Film Festival, which is screened in Finland and looking at their main website, they do not seem to archive any of their past screenings. The Destroy the Brain reference was an additional tie-in to Grindhouse Releasing's promotional screenings in preparation for the film's DVD release by the company. I have also made the following edits to the article:
 * Removed Film Monthly reference (URL is dead and unsalvagable).
 * Added Grindhouse releasing interview to home media section.
 * Added a 1971 review of the film by The Los Angeles Times to the reception section.
 * Added Gardenour Walter reference to article (was unable to add the others due to page number not listed in Google Books Preview).
 * Removed Hippie Films category (Someone else must have added that there).

Hopefully, that clears everything up.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One quick reply: The sources suggest that this is a film about hippies, so the category should be re-added - as well as a mention somewhere in the article. Something in the plot section would be enough! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a little more tweaking with the wording of some things just to get it all flowing right. Hopefully this all helps.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for that. I will be able to take a proper look through again soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking again:
 * "Incited by Sue-Lin, Rollo murders fellow cult member Shelly." None of these have been introduced yet; are they all cultists? Can this be made clear?
 * "and is joined by Dr. Oakes" Again, could you tell us who this is? Town doctor, member of the local public health board, mad scientist...
 * I'm not going to fuss about it for GAC purposes, but I note that you're a little inconsistent in your (non-)use of the serial comma

Need to stop there, sorry. Back tomorrow, hopefully. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the whole comma thing, that's always been an issue for me. Anyways, I redid some of the plot to help with the flow and clarification.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Horace encounters Sue-Lin, but she thwarts his plan to kill her. Rollo and Horace fight, allowing Andy, Sylvia, and Pete to escape. Rollo soon gains the upper hand and impales Horace with a sword" Again - Sue-Lin and Rollo are not introduced. Cultists?
 * " where it is subsequently killed by Mildred" He or she rather than it, I think. Generally, could I recommend "rabid construction workers" or "rabid cultists" or "rabid townsfolk" or something rather than "the infected"? I realise at this point we've probably gone full zombie-movie, but still...
 * You talk about 21st century screenings in two separate places. They probably all belong in the legacy section.

Other than that, I think we're good to go. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Done, and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this yesterday, but I looked over a previous version of the plot section, which was more detailed to the point of excessiveness. The issues you were seeing in the plot points of Su-Lin and Rollo, as well as some other points I felt could have used a bit more clarity, were present and I managed to transfer a filtered down version of that into the plot. It might be a bit rough but I hope that helps with the whole flow and clarity of the section. Anyways, feel free to look it over and let me know if it still needs work on it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Great; I'm now happy to promote. Good working with you! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)