Talk:Bioengineering in cinema
Review of the article
[edit]The structuring of this complex subject of bioengineering in movie sci-fi follows a natural flow. It provides a strong and informative overview, breaking down broad scientific concepts of cybernetics, synthetic biology, and genetic engineering into digestible sub-sections. A reader is able to quickly understand the general idea behind these topics, and experts have enough technical details to continue their research. Each topic is supported by well-known movie examples that make the science more accessible and relatable to a general audience. The images also help give the reader a clear idea of what is mentioned in each section. The article also highlights the ethical and societal implications of these technologies, which adds depth to the technical content.
While the article offers a well-organized and informative overview of bioengineering in sci-fi films, there are a few specific improvements that would enhance its clarity, encyclopedic tone, and alignment with Wikipedia guidelines. Some sentences are more like commentary than encyclopedic content. For example, “RoboCop emerges as the ultimate anticrime machine with digital precision and prowess” could be rephrased to something like “RoboCop is depicted as a crime-fighting cyborg enhanced with computer-assisted vision and advanced processing capabilities” would better fit Wikipedia’s neutral style.
There are some awkward phrasings that need polishing. For instance, “Sci-fi movies also tend to portray cyborgs as individuals who has mechanical and/or electronic parts...” could be changed to “...individuals who have mechanical and/or electronic parts...”. Using stronger language can help too; stating "Sci-fi movies portray" removes the doubt implied with "tend".
Some movie-based examples rely heavily on plot descriptions without academic or critical sources. For example, the Splice and Alien: Resurrection sections would benefit from references to scholarly articles, interviews, or reliable film criticism sources that further expand the scientific ideas depicted. Overall, the most important improvement would be aligning the tone and format more closely with Wikipedia standards. This includes using more objective, third-person language, and minimizing subjective commentary.