Wikipedia:Peer review/My Little Pony: Fighting Is Magic/archive1

My Little Pony: Fighting Is Magic
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it looks like an easy project to get to GA. Still, it would be nice to receive some feedback on how I can get this closer to it.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 12:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - sounds like an interesting game, but I do not think the article is ready for GAN yet. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are about 484 GA at Category:GA-Class video game articles, many of which seem like they would be good models for this article.
 * I think this meets the notability requirements, though since it is about a planned video game by a group of amateurs, it may be disputed by some. It might be worth reading WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.
 * The fact that the game has not yet been released seems to be to disqulify this for GA (and it certainly would not meet FA requirements). Looking at WP:WIAGA, one of the GA requirements is that the article be broad in its coverage. Since the game has not been released yet, it is hard to see how this or any article on it could be broad in its coverage now. Many of the details of the article are missing at this point because the game is still unknown. There can be no real description of plot or gameplay or critical reaction / reception yet.
 * Another concern I have is the sources - GA articles have to use reliable sources - these should be third-party, and independent of the subject as much as possible. Blogs are not generally seen a RS.
 * I also note that there are 15 sources, 3 of which seem to be either the game developers (mane6) or a blog of questionable RS value (Equestria Gaming). There is a Russian source which I cannot evaluate but is on WordPress, so it seems to be a blog too. And then 11 more clearly relaible sources. Of these 11, four (refs 12, 13, 14, and 15, do not mention this game at all. That leaves seven refs that do, which is OK for meeting WP:NN, but not for GAN
 * Be careful that the article uses refs properly. For example the article says Though an unlicensed work from Hasbro, the holders of the My Little Pony franchise intellectual property, the Mane 6 team has not received any cease and desist notices from the company to date.[11] but the CBC article only says Voice casting for the ponies is already underway and most surprisingly the toymaker Hasbro hasn't sued them to smithereens. Since a cease and desist order is not the same as being sued, this seems like an iffy use of the ref.
 * Watch out for vague time phrases - in the preceding quote "to date" could be replaced with "as of October 2011" (the date of the CBC story).
 * Is there any sort of timeline known for a possible release date?
 * I wonder if a WP:FAIRUSE image could be added - the sources I read talk about the artwork looking professional.
 * Not sure about including the names of the creators in the infobox - I would be more comfortable with this if the sources used for the names were more reliable.
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)