Wikipedia:Peer review/Overdrawn at the Memory Bank/archive1

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank


I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning on taking this to Good Article but I feel like I am missing something with how to improve the page. So I am sending this over for Peer Review to get some thoughts on what to do. GamerPro64 02:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
Putting this up as a placeholder. If I do not post further comments by this time next week, then please ping me. I recently watched the MST3K episode on this film, and I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of this article. Here are a few quick comments.

I hope these early comments are helpful. I will mostly likely come back to this over the weekend. I would actually be interested to see this movie outside of the MST3K episode because it actually seemed quite interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC) This should cover everything in the article. I will turn my attention to your current FAC over the weekend. Let me know if anything needs further clarification and have a great rest of your week. Hopefully other editors will also respond to this peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For this part, Based on the John Varley short story by the same name, I would add the year the story was published. This was done in the lead, but I would repeat it here as well.
 * Done. GamerPro64  02:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This part, Barsanti assessed Overdrawn as being, uses only Overdrawn, while the rest of the article uses the film's full title. I would be consistent with one method.
 * Done. GamerPro64  02:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For this part, Corbett also noted difficulties in mocking the film due to the death of Raul Julia, resulting in them barely making riffs on the actors., would it be beneficial to include the year Raul Julia died? I am only curious since Julia died only three years before the MST3K episode so that may add an extra explanation for why they had this difficulty.
 * Added a note to this part. GamerPro64  02:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a review of this film in Cinema Canada (here), and I think it would be useful to include it in the article. Be aware that it is a PDF download and not a webpage.
 * Added review. GamerPro64  02:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was curious if the film received any scholarly attention, and I did some research on Google Scholar. Most of the attention seems to be on the short story rather than the film, but Rewind, Remix, Rewrite: Digital and Virtual Memory in Cyberpunk Cinema and Postmodernism as Folklore in Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema could have some useful information. I cannot say for certain as they are both behind paywalls, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
 * Trying to figure out how to get access to these sources. GamerPro64  02:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You could try putting in a request here. Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to expand on the Blockbuster Entertainment and Jim Craddock reviews beyond just the amount of stars?
 * No. They is nothing they added besides recapping what the movie is. GamerPro64  02:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I am not really sure these reviews add anything to the article since the star ratings really do not mean much (at least to me) by themselves. Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed those sources. GamerPro64  05:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the prose for the "Reception" section can be improved. It is likely already good for a GAN, but I think it could still use improvement if you are ever interested in taking this to the FAC level. I know that it can be tough to write a section like this when there seems to be relatively few reviews.
 * Not really expecting to take this beyond GAN. GamerPro64  02:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is fair. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the past, I have often received a note to avoid the following sentence structure (with x noun verb-ing y). This is done in this part from the lead, with members of the show expressing dislike towards the film. I personally do not have an issue with this type of sentence structure, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
 * I do not think Rick's Place should be in italics.
 * In the plot summary, you refer to Aram Fingal by his last name and Apollonia James by her first name. I would be consistent with one way or the other.
 * I would vary the sentence structure of the second paragraph of the "Production and release" section as each of the three sentences is "It..." and I would avoid this type of repetition.
 * I would avoid having single word quotes like "quality". It would be better to paraphrase it. It may also be safe to just use the word without the quotation marks.
 * I believe punctuation marks should be on the outside of the quotation marks unless you are pulling a full quote. For the most part, it is done this way in the article, but these are instances where it is not done, a "tongue-in-cheek and imaginative 90-minute delight." and "certainly inoffensive, occasionally funny and altogether watchable.".
 * I would incorporate the negative Malloch review into the rest of the reception paragraph as I am not sure it necessarily works to put it off as a separate paragraph.
 * In the lead, you say that the film received positive reviews, but I am not sure that is fully supported by the "Reception" sections as there are several instances of more mixed reviews.
 * Is there any more information on the production of the film? I am assuming not since this seems like a more obscure release (at least from understanding), but I just want to double check with you. When I do a Google search, a majority of the coverage seems to be on the MST3K episode instead of the actual film.