Talk:Keymaker

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keymaker article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Keymaker was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
December 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
January 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 15, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

GA Fail

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

The biggest problem with this article is that it's written entirely in in-universe style. Per WP:WAF, Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. This article lacks any secondary information that is external to the fictional universe, save for a small paragraph at the beginning of "Plot." For this reason, it fails in both the "adherence to the Manual of Style" and "broadness of coverage" categories, which means a fail for the article overall. This link details the types of information that should be present to be a Good Article about fiction, such as development processes and factors, reception and legacy. Obviously not every last one of those points has to be in this article but, without this information, this article should not even exist as a standalone work on Wikipedia, much less be a Good Article.
Neither images list the exact article that the image is to be used in, which is a requirement for non-free content.
"The Keymaker also appears in the short lampoon MTV: Reloaded, produced for the 2003 MTV Movie Awards." is mentioned in the lead, but not the body of the article, a violation of WP:LEAD.
Per WP:REF, since most of the references in this article come after the punctuation, all of them should.
"The Matrix Reloaded reveals that the keys may also have the ignition key capability, particularly to set on Ducati 996 motorcycle from a hauler." (Keys) This sort of seems like it's original research without a citation but, again, it's difficult to tell when everything is in in-universe style.

As mentioned above, I will be failing the article at this time. Thank you for your work thus far. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Cheers, CP 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keymaker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Quick fail criteria assessment[reply]

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No obvious problems with quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
The article is not reasonably well written, it is full of clumsy phrasing. Consider enlisting the help of a copy-editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examples: Wachowski brothers should be preceded by the- thus the Wachowski brothers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The keys are already mentioned suggest something like the concept of the keys had been introduced....' Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph informs that the code is hidden Clumsy, bad grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are just some examples, I am sorry but most paragraphs are flawed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS):
The Role experience section is superflous, a small part of it might be relevant in an artcile on the film or the actor, but not on the character. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
The screenplay references redirect to another web site. The Time article link is broken, the Dictionary of Matrix link is broken. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
Many of the references are to non reliable sources.
c (OR):
I don't think there is evidence of OR
It is broad in its scope. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a (major aspects):
The article seems to focus on the actor more than the character Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (focused):
as per above Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
no edit wars Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Image used has a fair use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Caption is not literate. Suggest "...in his workplace" Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Right this article has a lot of issues, so I am going to fail it now. Please consider the points above, re-work and bring back to GAN when it is improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work

I found this article confusing and believe it needs serious work. It doesn't seem to discuss Keymaker's role in the plot much; focuses instead on unspecified "orientalist fantasies" and "modelization programs". Seems to me that the article should be re-written to focus on the character's role in The Matrix and leave the interpretation for elsewhere. In contrast, other articles on minor Matrix characters describe their roles within the trilogy in less arcane terms.Cogware (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Keymaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keymaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520011804/http://www.fox5vegas.com/entertainment/2562875/detail.html to http://www.fox5vegas.com/entertainment/2562875/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]