Wikipedia:Peer review/Puella Magi Madoka Magica/archive1

Puella Magi Madoka Magica
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, I believe that the article has great potential to become a Good article. Right now, it's only not a B-class article because coverage is lacking in certain areas. As such, good suggestions for content are appreciated, as well as possible Japanese sources that can be used. Also, are there any sections which still need improvement with regards to style, formatting, content, etc.?

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not unusual to have no references to plot, but for the sake of it, the first 3 episodes cover the anime and should be cited to the primary sources. Daisuki.net is official and has licensed the work, debuting on May 16 2013 with the first five episodes. There are two known doujin games which are not mentioned, these include Grief Syndrome which has an entry on the other wiki.  A second one is Homura Combat, another doujin game which got some coverage on Animemaga.ru  Alone they do not meet N, but a passing mention might be okay. We also totally miss the analysis and themes of the work, which since such RSes exist should be included. The entire development is poorly documented. Which would more then enough warrant a second article for the Anime alone at this point. Awards like the Nebula Award and Nikkan Sports are missing. Basically read the Japanese wiki version for where you want to go with this.  ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the doujin idea and are not worth a mention unless they have very strong coverage. There use to be a whole war on including Raruto in Naruto which was eventually decided against. Themes and Analysis is original research unless the author themself stated the intentional theme they wanted to portray; which is then just added into development. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Valid critiques from critics and analysis is common themes from other works and do not have to be discussed by the creator for interpretation or inclusion. Might as well put down discussion of Tolstoy because of it. And it seems like you didn't read the Japanese article because much of the development and such is covered by links to sources. Information not found in our article; something I'd expect at a GA nom and definitely required for FA. I don't care about doujin works so much, but they do exist and have been covered by RSes in some form. Raruto's, like the Harry Potter parodies before it, seem to have been pushed out, but the option is there if a single line is chosen to be included for completeness. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)