- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Basically, I'm looking for anything that I might have missed before sending this article about a machinima film to FAC. This passed GA and has been refined since. I'd take it to FAC now, except that it's been almost three years since I've nominated anything there, so I might need a reality check. —TKD [talk][c] 08:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: The semi-automated peer review commented on the quantity of images. One, in the infobox, is a non-free screenshot from the film, used to portray the characters. The other is a free-use photo of the creator. I don't think that any more relevant images could be found, and additional non-free screenshots would probably not meet NFCC. —TKD [talk][c] 00:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- None of the references that incorporate url's have them archived. I know it is not required, but it is quite useful if any of the links go dead.--Rockfang (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. I'll work on it in the next few days (currently a tad busy in real life). —TKD [talk][c] 07:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Very interesting and informative. My comments are pretty well limited to prose and presentational issues, since I don't have the knowledge to judge technical matters. I think the weakest part of the article is the Synopsis section, which needs to be rewritten in stronger and more detailed terms, so that the character and impact of the film can be more fully understood. Here are my detailed points:-
- Lead: last sentence: "Some raised concerns..." Who are these "some"?
- Synopsis
- I assume that the electrocution of Benna and Traore was accidental? This should be made clear.
- It would also help if the location of the real-life event was given – France? Morocco? America? Elsewhere?
- Use of terms like "discuss" and "disagree" sounds a little weak, as though police brutality was a debating point. The point should be made more forcibly, as the "discussion" led the three men to violent protest.
- In the following sentence it is not grammatically clear who "they" are – the three men, or the black population?
- "Angered, the three riot using Molotov cocktails." This key sentence is expressed too telegraphically. For example, as written it looks as though there were Molotov cocktails handily place nearby. Presumably the film cuts rapidly from one scene to another, but the impression of instant anger, instant violence, needs modifying in the prose.
- The last sentence contains two unrelated statements that are not obviously connected by an "and". The two halves of the sentence should be separate, and should be expanded. Was it an anonymous white family? Was any reaction portrayed, or did they watch impassively? What form did the dedication take – verbal, visual, both? Some elaboration is required.
- Background and production
- Sentences should not begin with a numeric (MOS). You could say; "Alex Chan, 27 years old...etc"
- "at the time" – of what?
- "...after he noticed and bought The Movies" Just "after he bought" will do. Also, in the lead you have described The Movies as a business simulation game; some similar description is required here: "after he bought the online business simulation game..."
- "Because Chan had no computer microphone, the film presents dialogue in English subtitles." A non sequitur. The sequence presumably is: Because Chan had no computer microphone the film lacks a soundtrack. The film therefore presents dialogue in subtitles. Chan chose English as the language for these subtitles in order to reach a wider audience.
- "Restricted to the scenery provided by the software, Chan set the electrocution deaths in a shack." As I indicated earlier, it would be helpful to have the true location of these deaths.
- I don't think "approximate" is the right word here. He was forced to use the Paris Metro as a stand-in for the New York Subway.
- Reception
- Word missing? "portrayal of police action against minorities"
- Another missing word? "However, some critics felt..."
- "...it completely differed..." Not sure that "completely is necessary. If it is, I think the phrase reads better as "it differed completely"
- Apostrophe after AMAS? Looks wrong. Also, you should define AMAS here, rather than at the next mention, in the next section.
- Legacy
- Based on the interest..." → "Based on this interest..."
- "Others further contrasted The French Democracy's serious nature with the prevalence of gaming-related references in other machinima works..." Sorry, this sentence lost me. What is meant by** "gaming-related references"?
- Who is Olli Sotemaa?
I hope that you find these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the extensive comments; I do find them helpful. I'll work on addressing them. —TKD [talk][c] 03:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Very nice article. Aside from a few wording problems, most of which were addressed by Brianboulton, the only real problem I see is the use of citations in the middle of a sentence. It might be in the MOS (I think it used to be, when I read it over two years ago); I don't know. But it's pretty standard to have citations placed after punctuation, as it's jarring to read over them mid-sentence. The article looks like it should easily be FA quality after the issues mentioned in this peer review have been taken care of. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know some people prefer not to insert footnotes mid-sentence, but I do it sometimes for precision. WP:CITE doesn't disallow this. However, I'll look again after I've fixed the wording issues that Brian raised. —TKD [talk][c] 03:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)