Wikipedia:Peer review/The Matrix/archive2

The Matrix
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article should've been a GA long ago, but we do not have many active contributors here who want to overhaul the article in a significant way, nor do we have any directions where it should go. I was considering just trying our luck and nominate this a GA, but maybe a peer review might be a good idea. I want to probe the general direction so we can work on it. The filming section is especially weak, as I've been doing it alone, and it relies quite heavily on 'The Matrix Revisited' DVD as source materials. If you wish to see The Matrix Revisited documentary itself see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJUQPvaeclY (Though I would like to ensure you that I don't use the link as ref, but the DVD itself.) I'm also worried about WP:close paraphrasing, especially when compared to Andrew Godosky's article. The duplication report is here: https://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Matrix&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.screened.com%2Fnews%2Funder-the-influence-the-matrix%2F2218%2F&minwords=2&minchars=13 And the reference is here: http://www.screened.com/news/under-the-influence-the-matrix/2218/. I've already removed some word-for-word quotes, but I want to know if the remaining info from the article is copied within reason.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Anthonydraco (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dea db  eef  05:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Deadbeef

 * Plot
 * Reword: Neo undergoes virtual combat training. He is warned that fatal injuries within the Matrix will also kill one's physical body, and [...] to After returning from virtual combat training with a bloody nose, Neo is warned that [...] or so.
 * Done.
 * Introduce the crew members earlier in the section so you don't have to explain them later; "crew member" is overused towards the end because of this.
 * For the last paragraph, find a more elegant solution to explain the concurrent timelines than, "In the real world, W. In the Matrix, X. In the real world, Y. In the Matrix, Z."
 * Done.
 * As it is referenced later in the article, add in a sentence or so about Neo seeing "the woman in the red dress".
 * Production
 * Development
 * Sentence fragment: But despite his and Di Bonaventura's influence, The Matrix was [...]
 * Try to come up with a more elegant way to say "never-been-done-before".
 * Done.
 * Filming
 * Take one of the "fake"s out of &para;2 (marked)
 * Done.
 * Change "everything"→"his whole body" and "The final scene"→"The later part of the scene" (last &para;)
 * Done.
 * Influences
 * Take out the bit explaining Plato's Cave (that's why we have blue links).
 * "along with many"→"and many more" (&para;3), and don't make it immediately follow the sentence about the Trinity. The reader expects an explanation of that, making this sentence confusing in context. Same with the following bit about Simulacra and Simulation, which should reference back to its previous mention in Pre-production instead of treating it as though the book had not yet been mentioned; it is already stated that the book was required reading.
 * Expand the last sentence-paragraph, or remove it.
 * Release
 * Critical reception
 * Neither of the sources of the first sentence declare "wide regard". They are, collectively, a Guardian list entry and an IGN list entry. Move the EW reference there instead.
 * Try to make it a bit more positive-to-negative in terms of where the reviews are placed to help the section flow a bit better.
 * Accolades
 * Change the section "Accolades"→"Awards"
 * Done.
 * Change "managed to sweep"→"received"
 * Done.
 * References
 * A lot of the article relies on The Matrix Revisited; while this isn't bad per se, it is a primary source, and should therefore not be the only source of information on sections whenever possible. Try to see if you can replace some of what it supports with secondary sources so that the article isn't just a rehashing of the info from the documentary. On that note, I don't personally have access to the film, so I can't vouch for whether it is sufficiently cited so that all information in the article is verified. There's a lot of paragraphs where the film is the only reference, so as this is just a peer review, I'll leave it to you to ensure that it is sufficiently applied.
 * Much of the material here is too close in letter to the sources; listing all of the examples here would be exhausting. The content here needs to be rewritten so that it isn't the same as the references that support it with a word or two changed.
 * Done, for the development section.
 * Note: I see you've addressed both of these concerns in the PR request itself. With that in mind, the above should be construed as a second opinion that both of those concerns need to be addressed. On the first bullet, there should be some secondary sources available, as the sections that rely heavily on it are present in many articles about films; therefore, with such a big production, there shouldn't be too big of a struggle to pull in more sources. On the second bullet, I would advise pulling up the sources of any sentence whose wording sounds copied (not hard to do, some of them are fairly obvious) and delete the sentence entirely, replacing it with a more thought-for-thought translation of the source.
 * General
 * I have placed a few tags in the article; look at my to the article to see where I have pointed out other areas of interest.
 * Hope this helps. Dea  db  eef  07:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)