Wikipedia:Peer review/The Matrix/archive1

The Matrix

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A groundbreaking film, both in story and special effects. Any tips please? Wiki-newbie 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every statement tagged with {{fact}} needs an inline citation from a reliable source. -Fsotrain₀₉ 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So just the two? Wiki-newbie 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two statements explicitly tagged as needing citations, yes, and any other statements of either precise and/or controversial fact. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is amazing. You might want to expand your critical reception a bit though. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am too new to the scene to advise you on formatting and house style, but here are a few comments on content. You have done very fine job on the Synopsis, although arguably it is over-long. Conversely I was disappointed that the 'Influences and interpretations' section was so short. You note that 'The Matrix makes numerous references to recent films and literature, and to historical myths and philosophy including Messianism, Buddhism and Gnosticism'. I would have been interested either:

In a few sentences outlining the comparisons between the Matrix pantheon and these schools of thought, and including both Vedanta, and Advaita in the list. (Especially the latter: 'Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal'), or

At least pointing to some such discussions along these lines elsewhere. If The Matrix has a value which is more than mere entertainment it is surely in bringing these ideas to a mainstream western audience, even if they are largely unaware of the parallels. Its only an opinion of course, but this to me is more pertinent than your assertion that in the 'first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film.' Ben MacDui 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the plot synopsis can be thinned out; it seems overly detailed. The trivia section needs to go, merge relevant information in appropriate places and delete the rest. Jay32183 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

Plot synopsis is too long - consider creating a child article and making the section shorter, and an image to illustrate a part of the plot may be useful.
The lead should be slightly longer; you may want to mention the film's impact briefly in the second paragraph.
Remove or move trivia. For example, this should really be in the Carrie-Anne Moss article:

In 1993, Carrie-Anne Moss appeared in a short-lived science fiction television series called Matrix.

Good work so far. As a fan of the film, I'd like to see a good an article as possible :) CloudNine 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second CloudNine on the Trivia section removal, but would add that if you decide not to remove it, the section at least needs to be checked for compliance with the embedded list guidelines. Good work on this article! -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the significance of names needs to be sourced - otherwise it seems like original research. Trebor 10:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]