Talk:Zombi 2/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I quite like this film, so will review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• First thing, it seems all the reviews cited are very recent (and seem retrospective), which should probably be stated. Contemporary reviews seem to be absent, and I'd expect there to be at least some discussion of these.

  I could specify the era the reviews are from if you think that would be useful, but there's nothing contemporary at all I could find—the BBFC cuts and ban were really the only reaction I could find sources for from the time. It was just a grindhouse-style exploitation film so reviews weren't really necessary at the time; you either knew you wanted to see it or you knew you didn't. GRAPPLE ^X 15:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's still important to try and get some, because it shows how these films were viewed. For example, I was able to find the Monthly Film Bulletin review for it. MFB is pretty good as it's often not just trashing a shlocky film because of it's genre and managed to find some nice things about the picture. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I doubt there was no kind of critical reaction at least in Italy at the time. The problem might just be that it can be hard to find them. But that's one of the hurdles when writing about non-English language films if one is not a native. Should be worth trying to find more on this to make the article comprehensive. In any case, yes, you should make it clear when a review is retrospective and not contemporary. FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added a contemporary review from La Stampa, an Italian newspaper. Both these reviews are labelled as contemporary reviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. The recent reviews should also be noted as such, preferably by date. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added years to a few of them, between that and the paragraph breaks it should now be clear where the modern critique is. GRAPPLE ^X 09:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Is that a bit redundant if the publishing date is already in the citation? They are already a bit wordy, but I can add them if you think it's absolutely needed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, most readers won't look at the refs. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Another thing, the infobox image is way too high res to act as fair use.

Fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article seems to miss a cast list.

  Cast are listed in the plot section, a separate section is redundant after that. GRAPPLE ^X 14:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Could also need a list of home media releases.

  I'll work on what I can for this today, I can probably source a few more recent DVD releases but I'm not sure how well the VHS history will be documented. GRAPPLE ^X 14:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Home video history now present. GRAPPLE ^X 09:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "her eye gouged out by splintered wood during this." Wording seems clumsy. "During which her eye is..." or some such might be better.

  Reworded to "dragged through the hole and killed, with her her eye being gouged out by splintered wood". GRAPPLE ^X 17:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Barrett dives in the ocean around the boat." I'm a bit unsure, but it seems like an oversight not to mention that she is practically naked in this scene...

  Enjoyable, but maybe not encyclopaedic. GRAPPLE ^X 17:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "by a bloated zombie." Who says it is bloated? Decomposing, yes, but I guess that's a given.

  Changed to "submerged" to convey it's been under there a while. GRAPPLE ^X 17:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Barrett's zombie attacks" Seems a bit weird to use genitive here.

  Now "the undead Barrett attacks"

• "Screenwriter Dardano Sacchetti had worked with Fulci on the former film already." Which former film?

  Looks like an artefact of a previous draft with fewer paragraph breaks, this was meant to refer to Sette note in nero (the former of the two films mentioned at the end of the last paragraph). Reworded to name it directly. GRAPPLE ^X 17:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• The alternate titles listed under release should be made into redirects to this article.

  Anything that wasn't, now is. GRAPPLE ^X 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Anything on rights issues in relation to Dawn of the Dead? Wouldn't there be legal issues when marketing it as a sequel? Or is the situation similar to Alien 2?

  Exactly the same; Italian copyright doesn't extend to preventing others from marketing a sequel to a given work. GRAPPLE ^X 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  Could this be explained then? FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, have added it into the production section. GRAPPLE ^X 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Has Romero remarked on the film?

  Not that I've seen, though to be fair I never though to look specifically. But he didn't turn up when I was searching the film online at all. GRAPPLE ^X 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "chalking up much of its "video nasty" reputation to a single scene of a woman's eye being gouged out" Seems a bit odd to describe it as such when the scene is already presented and the character is named earlier. Perhaps say "the eye gouging scene " or some such.

  Reworded. GRAPPLE ^X 18:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• The intro seems a bit too short.

  Expanded it out a little. GRAPPLE ^X 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is there really no more precise release date than just September?

  The only exact date I could find was on imdb, which is not only not reliable as a source, but lists August, which I do have reliably sourced as when there was a test screening rather than the wide release. GRAPPLE ^X 18:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• All looks good then, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)