Talk:The Asylum/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 00:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mushy Yank (talk · contribs) 21:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead section

independent film production---> link Independent film production
distribution company ----> link distribution
low-budget---> link to Low-budget film
add the year of foundation in the first or second sentence
which earn around $150,000 to $250,000 in profit--->add generally, approximately instead of around; earn+in profit= gross?
The Asylum spends around 4-6 months making a film-->add typically or another adverb
this means their employees will sometimes work upwards of 22 hours a day--->this is from a quote in an interview, can you rephrase it as a more general statement about crew's working hours or requirements?
business model-->link to Business model
Steven Spielberg film War of the Worlds--->Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds
Blockbuster ordered 100,000 copies--->Indicate it is an unusually big order for TA
In response to the popularity of Sharknado, Syfy commissioned The Asylum to produce a zombietelevision series called Z Nation, which ran for five seasons.--->Add the year.
Missing: key people, founders, and/or current CEO/president; the last section covers the reception and controversial image of the company or its productions, there should be at least a sentence about this in the LS too, even if it's very general.

Infobox

Add industry and genre parameters (see IFB template doc)

History

Image: caption: indicate the year when the photograph of Bales was taken

1997–2009

on the 1992 film Sorority House Party,----> in 1992, on a film titled Sorority House Party,
like is repeated 3 times in 2 sentences, can you repleace at least one (such as Blockbusters ...?)
their approach changed--->its approach changed, maybe (to make clear it’s TA and not the retail companies you are refering to)
This led to a change in their business model in 2002, with a focus on in-house productions.[1]-->because you’ve mentioned larger companies, their , here too, might be ambiguous. Maybe change: This prompted the team to change their business model in 2002, with a focus on in-house productions.
Note on that particular statement: the source does not mention a change of business model in 2002. Do you have another one? (It can be implied from the source but not with that year) (If you cannot source it maybe blend with the next sentence, by removing in 2002 and changing: as follows: This prompted the team to change their business model, with a focus on in-house productions; the goal...) [see next suggestion]
Their goal--->If you change the first their, maybe change this one too, simply The goal (or something like that, depending on what was changed before)
, starting with the 2002 crime thriller King of the Ants--->and the first film released by The Asylum was the crime thriller King of the Ants, in 2002.
The article about the film gives 2003. Which is it?
Strain left the company in 2002--->Strain left the company the same year (if you use 2002 in the sentence before, if not, leave it)
According to Film International, The Asylum's first hit film was Vampires vs. Zombies in 2004-->According to Wheeler Winston Dixon in Film International, The Asylum's ‘’first real hit’’ was Vampires vs. Zombies, in 2004. (to avoid repeating film and because these are Asylum standards
Although the film was marketed as an adaptation of the 1872 novella Carmilla, Vampires vs. Zombies's poster bore a striking resemblance to Freddy vs. Jason's poster, which came out the year before.-->Try to rephrase or use quotation marks and the original sentence in the source (too close in my view) (I would suggest rephrasing and maybe indicate critical reception was negative).
Film International writer Wheeler Winston Dixon described Vampires vs. Zombies as The Asylum's first mockbuster, a film that closely resembles another film with a similar title and premise in order to capitalize on its popularity.-->Wheeler Winston Dixon described Vampires vs. Zombies as The Asylum's first mockbuster, a film that closely resembles a major release with a similar title and premise in order to capitalize on its popularity. (and put the sources directly after ‘’mockbuster,’’ as the article does not define mockbuster but just states the film was one)
Around the same time, Latt-->use your own words, this is the source wording, maybe other sources can confirm it was also around 2004
but learned that Steven Spielberg was also working on a film adaptation of the novel.[2] Latt was prepared to end production until --> maybe rephrase: the source indicates it’s Rimani who learned that and that it’s him not Latt who was prepared to abandon the project (also, if you can, avoid to repeat adaptation)

2010–present

The Asylum marketed their films as "tie-ins", although journalists and critics often referred to them as rip-offs or mockbusters-->The Asylum marketed their films as "tie-ins", although journalists and critics often referred to them as "rip-offs" or "mockbusters".
The over-the-top premise went viral, with over 387,000 mentions on social media.-->indicate the year or period of time
Sharknado spawned five sequels-->link five sequels to Sharknado (film series)
Journalists often compared Z--> I would rather use passive: The series was compared to/ or name the critics and their media outlets
as three separate low-budget films that can then be cut into six-->as three separate low-budget films that could be cut into six episodes
Q: cut into six episodes: is it each or in total? (I assume the latter, but maybe it does not hurt to indicate it, if that's not too pedantic or if you don't think it's too obvious)

Approach to filmmaking

Image: indicate the photograph was taken on the set and the year
The Asylum spends around 4-6 months making a film-->Add generally or typically or any other synonymous wording
Whereas most major studios shoot one page from the script a day, The Asylum shoots around 10 to 12 pages a day--->add generally or typically
Due to the demanding work schedule, The Asylum often hires filmmakers with several years of experience-->Is this reasoning in the source? maybe indicate why and according to who.
which includes its own editing bays and visual effects studios-->link editing to Film editing and link visual effects
Marketing campaigns often hype up the absurdity of the film's premise and the studio's overall business mode--->Unless I am mistaken, the source only mentions marketing campaigns deliberately mentioning the business model, not the film’s premise. Can you rephrase or add another source for the first part?
the text, "15 years. 100 films. You're Welcome".-->the text: "15 years. 100 films. You're Welcome." per MOS and per source
link Tagline
was "Enough Said".--->was: "Enough Said". (this time punctuation, outside)
Whenever The Asylum makes a mockbuster, they tie the release of their film to coincide with the release of the larger film it's based on.-->is that in the source. According to whom?

Reputation and analysis

Despite their reputation-->Despite this reputation, maybe
To this extent, some journalists have postulated that consumer interest in Asylum films come from a desire to watch campy films, in particular those that fall under the "so bad it's good" label.[19][20] --->rather indicate who and the media outlet where they wrote that, than some journalists. Note: I see what corresponds to this idea in the first source, but what part of these comments is contained in the Warp article exactly? Also fix grammar ( comes) if that stays
Same thing for the second occurrence of "some journalists" (name+media), maybe, although this time, some are quoted just after this sentence; or use Various commentators, including../Certain critics (if that's what they are)...
said that The Asylum caters to its audience by leaning into the absurdity of their film plots-->said that The Asylum catered to its audience by leaning into the absurdity of their film plots
Snakes on a Plane -->link
satirizing-->link to Satire maybe
link antagonists

Catalog

including 300 original films--> original productions, maybe, to avoid repeating films (although it will repeat the wording of the source)
Q: can we get a non-affiliated source to corroborate that estimation?
Among their more notable releases include--->The company's best-known releases include: (to avoid among+include)
Q:what were the criteria for inclusion in this selection? (I'll have a closer look once you tell me how you selected them)

New section

Would a section about directors (and perhaps, actors) associated with TA, even short, make sense?

References

Note (for information but it could appear to be an issue or source of confusion for the reader) (source 7); The Variety 2009 source has 1996 as year of launching, but all other sources give 1997.

EL

Seems OK like that

~~On hold~~ Until I can see what can be done of these suggestions and what replies might receive my questions. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Still on hold: No edits to the page since the review has started and is on hold. If the page is not edited during the week, I will have to close this as fail. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment:

No response from nominator or other users; page unedited since October 2. Some issues remain unaddressed (LS, prose, overquoting, MOS, among other things). Willing to re-review this in the future if that can be improved. Verdict: Failed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.