| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it to be suitable for Good article status. I am mainly interested in whether it is possible to use the articles that are linked to in the refideas box on the talk page, which are translations of interviews posted on blogs. I imaging the interviews are reliable but the blogs might be a problem. Also, would it be a problem if such an interview was posted on a social media website like Tumblr for example.
Thanks, ISD (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I only did a quick check and would say it is not ready for GA. The character and location headers under the production section is all speculation from non-official sources; even if they're plausible. I spotted a bunch like those around the article as well. The article should be restructured as well; eg, the media section. See if Puella Magi Madoka Magica will help. Eliminate short paragraphs. The production section is breaking every paragraph under unnecessary headers. Consider removing references not acknowledged by official sources. I would not make a note on a related series every time they make a reference to Detective Conan. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- What are the non-official sources? ISD (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- I meant references as in referring and not citations if there was a misunderstanding there. An example of what I meant can be seen in the character section. The protagonist is a reference to either character 1, or 2, but has this been acknowledged by author or the staff? It remains as a fan speculation, and should be avoided. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Just some comments I leave
- Try to expand the lead to two or four paragraphs.
- Is the series' plot completed still ongoing? If the series ended, it needs to full.
- Since the anime is the only media, I suggest removing the media section.Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)