Talk:Aswang (1994 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 12:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

Hi Bungle, nice work on saving the article at AFD and improving it. I'll take on this review as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. Just don't make me watch it, it sounds awful! Mujinga (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is stable and neutral, no copyvio or original research. Referencing is good, pix are appropriately licensed and tagged (but could add alt captions per MOS:ALT). I sort of want to watch the film now. Putting the review on hold for comments below to be addressed. Mujinga (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2022 (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

Plot

i made some copyedits, see what you think
does the summary end a bit early? spoilers are allowed
actually the plot is 281 words and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot recommends 400 to 700, so a bit more could be added

The guide is a recommendation, but on the basis of the second point, it may be that the latter part of the plot can be expanded upon which may bring it closer to the generally accepted minimum length. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

agreed Mujinga (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded on the latter part of the film with its conclusion (of sorts). It's also over 400 words now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development

"set in northwoods of Wisconsin" - "set in the northwoods of Wisconsin" - also is northwoods a word?

I think it probably refers to Northwoods (forest), which I have linked. It is an actual place. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"were advised" - "was advised"?

Sure. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Martin expressed that upon hearing it, could not believe that film had not already been made about it" is garbled, please rephrase

I think the letter "a" was missed, but I have made some other subtle changes too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The budget of the film meant they" who is they here?

The cast & crew. Have clarified. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) "Visual effects of the time meant recreating the thread-like tongue near impossible, so it was instead changed to a garden hose" - a hose? what an elegant solution

I guess on a limited budget you use what you can to the best effect! I did read in a more recent producer interview that he noted with modern day CGI, he reckoned the film could be made better and for a fraction of what it cost in 93-94. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Visual effects of the time meant recreating the thread-like tongue near impossible, so it was instead changed to a garden hose" suggest "It would be difficult to create the thread-like tongue, so it was instead changed to a garden hose" since it was a money issue not a tech issue i reckon

This was based on the source which, quote, "We later learned that it was impossible to recreate this thread-like tongue" and further on, "Now it would be easy to create using computer generated effects". Thus it definitely seemed to be more around a lack of technological ability than affordability. On this point in particular during the book interview, funds aren't mentioned at all. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for clarification! Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

Bong State Recreation Area doesn't need to be italicised

Fair enough. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" The cabin and estate which feature in the film" suggest " The cabin and estate" since "which feature in the film" is duplicated from the previous sentence

I guess so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"with leaves turning" - with leaves turning brown?

Including "brown" seemed a bit obvious, so changed "turning" to "decomposing", as that is essentially what's being described. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"finish until 11pm, mostly outdoors" suggest cut mostly outdoors.

Any reason? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the whole sentence is "Filming would begin at 8am each morning and would sometimes not finish until 11pm, mostly outdoors" and the tacking on of "most outdoors" doesn't parse well at all for me. Could go with "Filming was mostly outdoors; it would begin at 8am each morning and would sometimes not finish until 11pm. " perhaps? Not sure how important it is to say it was outdoors. Mujinga (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted based on your suggestion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"however developed" suggest however it developed

Sure. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so what happened here, did the technician they hired bring a mechanical tongue? or make one? are the rubber tongues something else? i'm a bit lost on the tongue front

I have gone back to the ref and added a bit more info that was discussed. Also swapped the two sentences around but it's pretty much what the interview discussed. Is it any more coherent now? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"believed to be a common arrangement" suggest cut believed to be

Changed to "a typically common arrangement". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

"Among the cast included university student Tina Ona Paukstelis, John Kishline and Victor DeLorenzo, former drummer for rock group Violent Femmes" reads weird, suggest "The cast included university student Tina Ona Paukstelis and Victor DeLorenzo, former drummer for rock group Violent Femmes"

Sure, changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The casting of Norman" suggest "The casting of Norman Moses as Peter Null"

Amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postproduction and release

"Many crew members also worked on the film The Mighty Ducks." this sentence lacks context and is it necessary?

At the time I thought it may be useful to convey that the crew members had some experience beyond what was a first for the producers, but I can't really add much context without it slipping into being WP:OR, so removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The film was made on a budget of around $110,000,[2] although some sources say it was $150,000, which was expected to be made back from a video release, while profit was expected to come from overseas theatrical releases in countries such as Germany,[10] Bulgaria and South Korea" - that's a rather long twisting sentence suggest breaking it into two.

Sure, easy enough. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It was given a rating of NC-17, adults only" - imdb says R?

We tend not to take much notice of IMDB when seeking a reliable source. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect to see something about how much the movie took

So would I, but little to nothing is out there. I guess because it wasn't really a mainstream released film. From what I gather, the expectation on revenue streams would be via video release primarily. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"an idea conceived by Martin" suggest cut as unnecessary detail

Sure. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

""Aswang" is a very effective" suggest italicising Aswang

Sure. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Atlanta Constitution in 1994" suggest cut in 1994

Done. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

not keen on "Edwards (2017). Matthew Edwards (ed.). "

I know, but I think I need something to reference in the sfn template. What do you suggest? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest one of these depending on which fits better:

Matthew Edwards, ed. (2017). Twisted Visions: Interviews with Cult Horror Filmmakers. McFarland Incorporated Publishers. ISBN 9781476663760.
Edwards, Matthew (2017). ""name of chapter"". In Matthew Edwards (ed.). Twisted Visions: Interviews with Cult Horror Filmmakers. McFarland Incorporated Publishers. ISBN 9781476663760.

Went with the latter as this was just referencing against a specific chapter only. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Any reason why the film has two names?

No idea really. Newspapers from around the time of release, such as this article, style it like Aswang: The Unearthing, as if to suggest it's actually part of the title, though there are also instances where it's just Aswang and other outlets just refer to it as The Unearthing, so I don't know. I couldn't find anything that specifically explains the choice(s) of film name. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Aswang, also called The Unearthing, is a 1994 horror film directed and written Wrye Martin and Barry Poltermann and starring Norman Moses and Tina Ona Paukstelis." suggest editing and splitting up eg "Aswang, also called The Unearthing, is a 1994 US horror film directed and written by Wrye Martin and Barry Poltermann. It stars Norman Moses and Tina Ona Paukstelis"

Following the deletion of the actress article, I don't know whether either need to be named specifically in this without clear notability, so removed their reference from the lead. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics had mixed opinions on the film, with some believing it was too slow to start while others felt the opposite, that it started well but didn't rate its ending" suggest cut "but didn't rate its ending", also is it critics or people as mentioned in article below?

Probably was just people, yes. I rephrased the latter part. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It was one of only 65 films selected to be shown at the Sundance Film Festival, to a mixed audience reception, of whom some walked out part way through due to the use of blood and gore." suggest splitting alogn the lines of "It was one of only 65 films selected to be shown at the Sundance Film Festival, to a mixed audience reception. Some people walked out due to the use of blood and gore."

Sure. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

suggest combining paragraphs 2 and 3 into one paragraph

Sure. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Mujinga: Many thanks for the review, i'll look over things over the next few days. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

great no time pressure, happy to work on it at a pace that works for both of us Mujinga (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: Sorry about this taking a little longer than anticipated, I have been a little busy this week but will endeavour to complete over the weekend as I am not too far away from addressing all the points now. Thanks for the patience. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with it, thanks for the update! Mujinga (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: I think I have addressed and/or responded to all points now? Let me know your thoughts, thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great this is now good article. I made some copyedits as I read through, feel free to revert. And just as last thoughts but not a pass/fail issues, "Philippine folklore" or "Filipino folklore"? and you've now got "Actors received $50 a day for their participation, in anticipation of a greater sum once the film was released" and "Most of the cast and crew accepted deferred wage payments based on the eventual revenue the film would make" a bit later, not sure if that's intended or not. In any case making this a good article now. Mujinga (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I'll look at anything else that could be improved beyond the GA process. Appreciate your efforts. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]