Talk:Son of Dracula (1943 film)

Untitled

--- Chaney as Alucard ---

This whole section is weasely and uncited. It should probably just be removed. Can anyone improve it? BoosterBronze (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it. BoosterBronze (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference for assertion made by previous poster. As a note to the person who pulled the edit, next time try to help out by looking for an assertion to support rather than just delete it. This is acooperative effort and not fake academia Drlloyd11 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not my responsibility to look for a source when the editor has been told three times that a source is needed. Further, your source, while pertinent, does nothing to support the previous editor's contention that the matter is still under discussion today. So, please, considering that you yourself did not come up with a source that supports the IP editors' contribution, keep your criticism for where it is actually appropriate. BMK (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Son of Dracula (1943 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 04:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a strong, strong article. I haven't been through in-depth yet, but I've skimmed it without complaint -- love the last sentence. Will come back with nitpicks. Vaticidalprophet 04:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

First notes

The article is good work on the whole, but there are a number of prose concerns. Under "Plot", there's a broad tendency towards run-on sentences with too few commas (e.g. Brewster has noticed that Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards and Lazlo suspects vampirism and She explains that she only married Alucard (who is really Dracula himself) to obtain immortality and wants to share that immortality with Frank). "Development and pre-production" has multiple sentences with issues:

1. No notes exist regarding the possibly story content if any for these films. (misused words and run-on)
2. he only wanted one Siodmak around. (lack of capital letter at beginning)
3. In his book on Son of Dracula production history, Gary D. Rhodes suggested that Curt might have been wrong about this specific situation as there was no indication that Robert was hired as the director when Taylor was hired for the script. (very long sentence with few commas or other breaks)

I'd also recommend placing inline citations in numerical order; presently you have several cases of "[10][7]" and the like. Vaticidalprophet 09:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the article out. I've done some clean-up of phrasing and long run-on sentences as well as re-organizing the citations so they flow numerically (i.e: [7][10] opposed to [10][7]). Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional notes

Have made some copyedits. Outstanding issues:

1. In comparison Jungle Woman (1944) being 14% above average and The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944) being 13% above average, The Mummy's Ghost (1944) being 5% above average and The Mad Ghoul (1943) being 2% below average has rather confused wording.
2. I've inline-tagged "the authors" of Universal Horrors.

Putting on hold. Vaticidalprophet 05:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tried to address these issues. How is it now @Vaticdalprophet:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Good enough for GA -- happy to pass. Vaticidalprophet 06:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)