Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ultime grida dalla savana/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:48, 4 April 2009.

Ultime grida dalla savana

 * Nominator(s): Helltopay27 (talk)

This article is already listed as a Good article, and after some further copyediting, I've decided to try my luck here. I have two major concerns that I feel reviewers will target: the synopsis section may be too long and detailed, for one. No documentary article is currently a featured article, so I had no example to follow. I found this film in particular, which doesn't feature a cohesive narrative, to be particularly challenging to provide a sufficient yet concise synopsis. Also, the lack of a "Production" section is unfortunately unavoidable, as I've yet to encounter any source that covers the production of the film. I will try to implement these corrections if asked. Helltopay27 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing such a good article on an obscure topic, it is an enjoyable read. I'm sorry to say this, but I couldn't support the article in its current state given the absence of page numbers for each book reference. I know it would be quite a chore to have to through them again, but think of the poor reader trying to chase a claim! Some other comments, queries and suggestions:
 * The average reader is likely to be unfamiliar with the Mondo and exploitation genres; perhaps you could add a sentence or two to provide context?
 * In the Synopsis, is the hunter being introduced to Patagonia or the viewer to the hunter?
 * Is there an appropriate wikilink/redirect for social hunting that might be useful for context here?
 * Not sure about the appropriety of an entirely parenthesised sentence; might be better as a footnote. A MoS-expert could help here
 * There are second-grade teachers out there who would decapitate you for starting a sentence with "Also,"!
 * "Reflected in this is a montage of gun ownership, which is related to feelings of masculinity" – does the film make this relation explicit, or is our article simply saying that there is a relation? In the latter case, attribution to a reliable source would be necessary.
 * If the author of the Time Out Film Guide entry is named, the article ought to mention them.
 * Could you briefly state James Ferman's argument as to why the film showed the need for censorship?
 * This sentence needs altering: "The inclusion of several staged or scripted scenes has made the film, which claims to consist of purely authentic footage, a target for critical condemnation." Films don't make claims; if there is written text or voiceover making the claim, say so. If the producers make the claim in an interview, say that.
 * "The lion attack on Pit Dernitz is also suspected of being a fabrication" – by whom?
 * "While staged footage had been included since the early history of Mondo films, these scenes are nonetheless targets for critical abashment." The change of tenses here is awkward; changing either clause to the past tense might help.
 * "come under fire" is a little informal for an encyclopaedia.
 * In the last sentence of the Criticism section, it appears as if Goodall is receiving criticism, and at least one of "aside from", "also" and "another" is redundant.
 * Most readers will not be familiar with the Valtion elokuvatarkastamo; couldn't hurt to add an adjective or two. In a similar vein, RSPCA might be clearer if not abbreviated.
 * What makes the following links Reliable sources?
 * It might also be a good idea to add articles on the directors, Antonio Climati and Mario Morra. Again, thanks for your efforts thus far and I think the article could be featured standard without too much trouble. Sincerely, Skomorokh  21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've corrected most of the points that you've made. Unfortunately, I won't have access to the books again for another week or so, so the page number issue will have to wait. Here are some responses:
 * No, Time Out Film Guide doesn't give the name of the reviewer.
 * The DVDManiacs reference, which is now dead, will be removed once I find another review of the film (which are quite scarce).
 * The Digital Retribution reference has been replaced.
 * The DVD Aficionado reference is intended to prove the existence of said DVDs, which the link clearly proves. The purpose of the DVD Aficionado website is to collect various DVD releases of films and provide them as a reference. Its dedicated purpose, combined with the fact that it is not an independent website (i.e. it is part of Saudakar Corporation) I believe makes it reliable.
 * I'm looking for a more reliable source than SoundtrackCollector.com to provide a source for the soundtrack's release, although I believe that the soundtrack's mere existence is of itself evidence.
 * Refused-Classification.com receives censorship information from the OFLC, which is a pretty reliable source. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech.Review
 * Dabs are not up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
 * They need to be fixed
 * External links are not up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
 * There is 1 dead link
 * Ref formatting is not up to speed (checked with WP:REFTOOLS script)
 * The following refs are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead
 * The following ref names are naming more than 1 ref name, when they should only name 1 specific ref
 * Slater
 * Goodall
 * AllMovie
 * Refused
 * AussieDVD--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "Dabs" are, but the references have been fixed. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It means disambiguation links. Sorry.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   00:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then forgive me, I'm not sure what you're proposing that I need to fix. Helltopay27 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It means that some of the internal wikilinks, instead of leading to the intended article, instead go to disambiguation pages, and should be fixed. The two in question are Huemul and Kangaroos. Steve  T • C 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe all of your issues have been fixed. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "Dabs" are, but the references have been fixed. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It means disambiguation links. Sorry.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   00:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then forgive me, I'm not sure what you're proposing that I need to fix. Helltopay27 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It means that some of the internal wikilinks, instead of leading to the intended article, instead go to disambiguation pages, and should be fixed. The two in question are Huemul and Kangaroos. Steve  T • C 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe all of your issues have been fixed. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Image Review: Could you please format properly summaries the three files included in the article on their respective pages? I believe that WP:FURME can help that along. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse my ignorance, but what's wrong with their format as is? Is there a style guideline for such things? Skomorokh  03:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I find nothing in Wikipedia's policies that say that these are inadequate. In fact, I've formatted image pages like this for other featured articles. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, I have always formatted fair use images like so. I am unsure if it is a requirement to use such templates, or if it just makes it look nicer. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'll try to hunt down the appropriate templates. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed the film poster's page, and the soundtrack cover is no longer part of the article. However, the screenshot template is about to be deleted and since its inclusion is up in the air anyway, I've let it be. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any Italian language sources that could be used to construct a development section? Budding Journalist 03:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked, but have not found any. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

oppose - three low quality images that show a man getting mauled are unjustified under NFCC, images don't convey much information. The LP cover seems weird, I don't know why that is significant at all. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the LP cover, but the other images help identify the scene in question and gives context to the scene's violence and why the scene is often censored. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it standard practice to include the cover of soundtracks in film articles? Skomorokh  19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This was the premise I was working under, yes. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the film article guidelines, the image in the film article's infobox serves as cover art to identify the topic. With this identification in place, the inclusion of additional cover art should be rationalised with a non-identification purpose, e.g. secondary sources' coverage of the cover art's appearance. While it relates to DVD, a good example can be found at Fight Club (film) – Home media. Saying all that, there may be some wriggle room in that the soundtrack cover art is identifying a separate subject. But coming at this from an angle of what's best for the article, I'm not sure what the image was actually adding of value—just because an image can be included, it doesn't necessarily mean it should. Good luck with the rest of this FAC, Steve  T • C 09:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:OVERLINKing throughout of words known to speakers of English. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I addressed that and other MOS issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Needs page numbers for book references.
 * http://www.dvdmaniacs.net/Reviews/Q-T/savage_man.html deadlinks
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.refused-classification.com/
 * http://195.197.150.133/elokuvahaku/EH1200.aspx
 * http://www.dvdaf.com/search.html?has=ultime+grida+dalla+savana&init_form=str0_0_has_ultime+grida+dalla+savana
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Page numbers are coming as soon as I get the books again, and I've already been over the reliability of R-C.com and DVDaf.com. The other site is the official site of the Finnish film board, and since it is used to cite the classification of the film in Finland, I think it qualifies as reliable. Helltopay27 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * R-C.com gets their information directly from the OFLC -- reliable. The official site of a film board -- reliable. 99.167.78.33 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where on the refused classification site they say that their information comes from the OFLC. Looking at the page for the film, they are crediting someone named "HellToPay27" for some information on what was and wasn't cut. I've struck the Finnish film board query. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On individual film entries, they will provide specific information on their sources. A good example is the Cannibal Holocaust and Classes in Seduction entries, where they quote numerous customs and government releases. Also, I'm not affiliated with the site; I merely gave them cut status based on a comparison of a cut and uncut print, and they credited me for it. This website has been used as a source in other featured articles without a hitch. Once I get access to the books again, I'll do further research. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also removed the DVDaf.com citation, as the existence of said DVD releases should be evidence enough. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OKAY, let's review what issues have been raised:
 * The references have been fixed. The format is updated, and all book references have been revised to cite the specific pages.
 * The DVDManiacs citation exists no more.
 * The disambiguation links have been fixed.
 * The overlinking issue has been fixed.
 * As for the pictures, the LP cover has been removed, and I've given my argument as to why the images of the lion attack should be included: they provide a visual example of the violence of the scene without being excessively graphic. So far, nobody has commented on this, not even the person who originally brought up the issue.
 * The picture pages have been reformatted.
 * The seemingly only remaining issue is the credibility of Refused-Classification.com. I still contend that the website is indeed reliable, as the bulk of their information comes from the Australian government, as evidenced by the multiple quotes of customs reports, court transcripts, and OFLC rulings throughout the website. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.