Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cannibal Holocaust/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 09:48, 16 April 2008.

---

Cannibal Holocaust

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films notified.

I've done some major restructuring of the article over the past few weeks, and I want to make sure that I haven't screwed anything up too badly. Specifically, I'm requesting a prose review for the entire article. Any other suggestions are welcome also. Helltopay27 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by User:Canadian Paul

I made a couple of slight prose changes. If you disagree or want an explanation, please just let me know and I'd be more than happy to discuss. Other than those slight changes, I had no major problems with the prose. Here's a few more quick and very subjective comments/questions. Feel free to strike anything you do/disagree with. I didn't check much to do with referencing, since I'm assuming that was all covered when the article first became featured.

1. Is "documentarians" a real word, or at least one use to describe their job? It sounds right, but Firefox spell check tells me it doesn't exist.
2. Under "Plot", the last sentence of the first paragraph ends with "and grows increasingly disturbing as the film progresses." This seems a little POV to me. I've seen the film and do agree, but if you could find a citation to back this up, it certainly wouldn't hurt. I don't think it's a huge deal though.
3. Per WP:CONTEXT, I'm not sure it's helpful to Wikilink crew in the plot section.
4. In the plot, I changed one part to "Due to the efforts the military"... it might help to clarify whether this was the American military or the local military.
5. One very very pedantic grammar change that I didn't make was, in the second paragraph of "Production", I believe it should be "delayed shortly" rather than "shortly delayed", but I think I may confusing two different grammar rules, so I may be wrong on this one.
6. I think that the second sentence of the first paragraph of "Direction" would work better as two separate sentences, but that might just be me and my distaste for two sentence paragraphs. I think it disrupts the flow a bit, but others may disagree.
7. Second paragraph of "Direction": "David Carter of Savage Cinema..." What is Savage Cinema and why is David Carter qualified to tell me about this film? If Savage Cinema has a Wikipedia link, then it should be linked. If not, no more than half a sentence should be spent explaining what Savage Cinema is. Same with "Scott Ashlin of 1000 Misspent Hours", "The Paly Voice" later under "Interpretations" and "Rob Humanick of The Projection Booth" in the same section
8. In the introduction to "Reaction", I think that the little side comment ((which was ultimately the case)) is unnecessary.
9. Following from my comments on "Direction", under "Critical response" there's a quote from "Mike Bracken". You need to explain who Mike Bracken is and why he's qualified to comment on the movie, because there's no way at the moment to tell the difference between him being a professional reviewer or some guy on the Internet who gives his opinions on movies. Same with "Sean Axmaker", "Nick Schager" and "Eric Henderson"
10. My one referencing concern was the end of the "Soundtrack" section where "and is a highly sought item by fans of the movie. In August 2005, the soundtrack was released again, this time in the United States, on the Coffin Records label." is uncited. The last part arguably doesn't need a citation since its inherent to its own existence (although a ref certainly wouldn't hurt), but I would think the fact that the CD is highly sought after would be POV without a citation.

Apologies if I accidentally deleted something in the edit conflict. It was unintentional. Cheers, CP 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

1. Yep, it's a word for someone who makes documentaries, according to Dictionary.com Unabridged and American Heritage Dictionary.
2. I've always been suspect of that phrase, but I've always kept it in because it helps the article's flow into the synopsis. I'll remove it unless someone provides a citation.
3. I didn't even notice that anyone had wikified the cast. I'll change it.
4. I changed it further for grammatical reasons.
5. Changed based on the fact that I agree, it sounds better.
6. I'm not even sure how to break this sentence up without it sounding forced/awkward.
7. I've removed all Paly Voice references because, unbeknowst to me at the time of adding the reference, it's a high school newspaper! The other websites are established cult horror magazines/websites that don't happen to have a Wikipedia article. I'll establish that within the article.
8. Another sentence that I've been suspect of. I agree, it's unnecessary, and I've removed it.
9. All of these reviewers are featured on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that they are professional reviewers and members of various writing unions. I don't think there's any way of establishing this without sounding very sloppy (i.e. "These reviewers are all featured on Rotten Tomatoes").
10. Sorry, often I add information that I know personally that doesn't necessarily have a reference perse (i.e. word of the mouth). However, I think that bit is necessary, so I'll try to scrounge up a citation from somewhere.

Thanks for the review! Helltopay27 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Again, like an idiot, I completely forgot to exploit the commentary in the Mondo film books that I have, which certainly makes the authors' opinions relevant. I've removed all suspect reviewers (save those on Rotten Tomatoes) with similar opinions made by these authors.

Also, I re-separated the paragraphs in the Interpretations section, as this covers both interpretations and not just the media angle. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the status on this one? Do the nominator and others think the prose has improved sufficiently? Marskell (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. Issues were raised on the prose, and I was able to resolve all of them. The problem is, like I said before, is that we didn't really get a very broad scope of opinions. Helltopay27 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not moving this because I feel it needs to lose status but to get a few extra comments. Is Canadian Paul around? Marskell (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with the prose but why do the documentary interviews have retrieval dates and are the web-sites used as sources reliable? 14:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.8.2 (talk)
  • Yes, they're reliable. Just because they're websites shouldn't necessarily imply that they're not reliable. Most of the websites are the websites of the reviewers that are cited. I'll fix the retrieval dates; they're for if they interviews were online. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - no major issues. --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I really don't think that this needed a full-blown FAR just because an FA had some substantial edits, frankly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the best FAs I've read in a while. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, thanks. Wasn't expecting that one. As to Girolamo Savonarola, I didn't think that a peer review was for featured articles, and I didn't expect for it to move on to be a FARC. Like Marskell said, it was listed as a FARC not necessarily for being demoted, but to obtain additional comments. Helltopay27 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.