Wikipedia:Peer review/Puella Magi Madoka Magica/archive2

Puella Magi Madoka Magica
This peer review discussion has been closed. It's been a year since the last peer review, and since then, the article has reached B-class. Recently, has been working a lot on the article, and as of late, it's one of the best written non-GA anime articles I've read. With his permission, and also because I'm one of the main contributors to the article, I'm requesting more feedback as to what else can be done, as the article is looking good for a possible GAN. Is the content good enough to be nominated for GA?
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting it up for peer review, Naruto. (can I call you that?) I would however like to reiterate that I don't think the article is quite ready for GAN yet. I'm still heavily working on the "Broadcast and distribution section", and the "Other media" section is still a mess. The reception section also needs major expansion, and a copyedit of the entire article will then be needed. Finally, I am a little concerned that the article relies too heavily on sources from Anime News Network (over sixty of the article sources are from that site, last I counted). If anyone can help me find more diverse sources for some information of the article (particularly for broadcast, other media, and sales/accolades) that would be extremely helpful.  Artichoker [ talk ] 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Here are my preliminary comments:
 * Lead - looks good, at least 3 paragraphs or so
 * Plot - covers every aspect of the series sufficiently
 * Reception - agree that it needs to be expanded
 * Sources - more diverse sources are needed per Artichoker, all dead citations must be replaced
 * Other media - still has some issues as well

I hope this helps somewhat. I'll review it in more detail a bit later. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reception is actually looking good, in my opinion. It's already longer than the reception on GA Shakugan no Shana at least, so probably this amount of reception could be good enough. As for sources, I agree that more sources other than Anime News Network are needed, but as ANN is essentially the main source of reliable anime information, that can't really be helped. Looking at Shana, many of its sources come from the Shana official website. Madoka could possibly do so as well, but its official website is structured differently in that its news page is a single continuous page and doesn't have individual pages. And finally, for other sources, could you suggest other possible sources to use, including Japanese sources? Finally, while neither Artichoker nor I are going to nominate the article for GA anytime soon, if the article were to have a GAN now, would it pass or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should use Comic Natalie, as well as interviews from the cast and crew about their thoughts on the production if there is any (there's a lot so far). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Naruto, for an anime as widely popular as Madoka Magica I don't think the current length of the reception section is long enough, which I why I plan to continue expanding it. It may already be longer than other articles that are GA, but this anime is considerably more well-known than many others and thus I believe more reception exists that can be included into the article. As for the current state passing GAN, I don't believe it would as per my concerns I listed above. I will continue working on the article, and I will nominate it for GA after all of these tasks are completed. I know my progress on the article has slowed in the past couple weeks, but once I finish my real-life obligations, I expect to hit the ground running again.  Artichoker [ talk ] 20:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. Could you specify which citations you found to be dead?  Artichoker [ talk ] 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The production section is really long. I would recommend creating subsections to make the article easier to read. See for example what I did in Psycho-Pass.Tintor2 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I will try to add subsections to the production.  Artichoker [ talk ] 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good work. A themes section could also be created. I'm not too familiar with the series but isn't the story deep?Tintor2 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very deep. But I'm not sure what sort of themes could be talked about that isn't already covered in the prose within production.  Artichoker [ talk ] 17:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

, I've seen that some of the Anime WikiProject's GAs (such as Clannad (visual novel) and Little Busters!) have a "Legacy" section. Could one work for Madoka? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A legacy section is something that can only exist if the sources allow it. Clannad and Little Busters have been out for a considerably longer time than Madoka Magica and thus there may be more information on the overall impact that these works had on their respective genres, industries, etc. However, Madoka Magica is newer and there might not be as much information. Looking around, I have found a few sources that could be included in a legacy section, but since they are fewer and more far in between, they fit much more appropriately in the reception section. Perhaps in several years there will be enough critical commentary for a legacy section in the article.  Artichoker [ talk ] 20:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, I just read the legacy sections for Clannad and Little Busters!, and would argue that those are not in fact actual legacy. I could be wrong, but I take "Legacy" in this context to refer to critical commentary on how the piece of media has influenced the genre, the industry, or popular culture. For example, I think Halo: Combat Evolved contains a true legacy section, but the sections in Clannad and Little Busters! could be more appropriately titled as "Sequels and spin-offs".  Artichoker [ talk ] 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)