Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyberpunk/archive3

Cyberpunk[edit]

Self-nom. OK, for a while now, I've been trying to throw good information after bad in an effort to make SF coverage less, well, fannish. This is why I hacked on Three Laws of Robotics until it made FA, and lately, I've been trying the same thing at Cyberpunk. My fellow editors and I have tried to break down the writings of lit-crit professors and role-playing gamers, two of the most abstruse subcultures H. sapiens has yet to generate. I'm pretty proud of the result. The article has gone through two previous FACs, the first in April and the second in September. The first time it failed, deservedly; the second, it got a pretty favourable reception. I believe we managed to address several of the objections which the commentators hadn't struck out (summarized on talk), and there've been a few improvements besides. As always, I look forward to reading your comments. Anville 22:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

This is really close; the lead is great.
Quite a few weasel terms in there, particularly the pernicious "some" (people, critics, readers, etc.). Also, though less problematically, there is overuse of "often", particularly in the Style section.
The Film and Television section still seems like a fairly random list with a jumpy chronology and little indication of what import the various entities mentioned have. I also think the detailed and rather snarky commentary on the box office results and critical response to the various Matrices is a veer off-topic. This section needs the most work, IMO.
Likewise, the Games section jumps around chronologically (and appears to ignore anything pre-1990; seems like some early text-adventure games (A Mind Forever Voyaging) may deserve mention), and includes a digression about Steve Jackson games.
I can't help but think that at least some history from the Literature section needs to come before the Style section, as it is describing the style of writing, which we know nothing about at this juncture; conversely, there is some philosophical/analytical stuff in the Literature section (the Brin quote) that seems like it would be better elsewhere.
The aside about "aggrandizing the genre" is too clever by half (maybe three quarters), stopping the article in its tracks while really adding nothing to the reader's understanding.
I think the sub-genres need their own sub-section.

Jgm 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It was close enough last time, it should pass this time. Some notes: merge small paras into larger ones, try to reformat lead into 3 paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object for a couple minor reasons. 1) We have way too many "fair use" images on here, get a few more gfdl/cc-by-sa's on there. 2) way too many see also's... you have some after sections (which is ok) and then an entire see also section. More of these links should be worked into the text somehow. And whats with the Futher Reading section, is it or is it not linked into the text? if so its notes, if not its merely external links. Getting better but theres still stuff in need of work. ALKIVAR™ 02:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I really enjoyed this article. I see no issue with the images since it is hard to come by non-commercial material on the subject, and the rationale provided for each fair use image was adequate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was enjoyable enough, quite peppy to read, informative -- I mean, I think it is a good, solid encyclopedia article for someone looking up cyberpunk. I don't think I have the literary qualifications to cast a vote, mainly because I haven't read widely enough in the genre to get a feel for whether the article is...representative. All of the high profile stuff I could think of offhand is there and in seemingly useful context, Gibson, Blade Runner, Max Headroom, Snow Crash, "steampunk", film noir/Chandler, RPGs, etc, etc. I disqualify myself from voting because I feel perhaps there's something missing, maybe in the synthesis area, but I'm not at all sure what it is, and I suspect that's due to my not knowing the territory well enough. My one specific criticism: the Matrix paragraph, which obviously deviates from the proceedings, and reads more like a mildly veiled fan trilogy critique (reference to the original Matrix, with passing mention of the others, is likely sufficient)... --Tsavage 18:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well-written and comprehensive. And I got a nice ego-boost by finding out that a book I read as a twelve year old had "prose..too dense for novice or casual readers". There are also a few cyberpunk comics, Hard Boiled & Transmetropolitan for example, but I wouldn't say their inclusion is vital in what is a fairly long page anyway. Leithp (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, What he said. Let's crank up the Billy Idol, and jack in:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A lot of effort has gone into this one, and it shows. Ambi 00:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked the article, but would make a few suggestions. 1) Cut out the discussion of Matrix sequels. It's out of place and not needed (and I didn't like the sequels at all!) 2) Better incorporate the Max Headroom information. It's currently a one-sentence paragraph. Subcategories for live action and anime might help break up the long text 3) The section on Operation Sundevil is odd. Either give more information or cut it all together. What were the real reasons for the raid? It needs some attention. 4) Consider making a list of topics related to cyberpunk and then linking that in the see also. All in all, though, great work! InvictaHOG 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]