Wikipedia:Peer review/Mobile Fighter G Gundam/archive1

Mobile Fighter G Gundam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to improve its sourcing and its accessibility for readers unfamiliar with its material. I worked hard on it last summer and hope to nominate it for Good Article sometime in the near future.

Thanks, Hibana (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a brief look and will try and give more comments when I am at a computer. Overall it looks like a decent article at a glance but a couple of thing caught my attention. Unless anything has changed durin my time away, Plot doesn't need references as it's taken as understood that the work itself is proof of its plot. Secondly if you are sourcing information from DVDs, it need to be clearer what you are taking the claim from - is it a interview? Commentary? Printed matter included in the packaging?

I do have a concern about the plot summary, I'm not convinced by some of the writing style/viewpoint. Have a look at some of the GA articles and see if you can get an idea for style. Essentially the talk of timelines sticks out and can go elsewhere in the article, perhaps production. Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions by DragonZero

Reading this was an eyesore. Huge blocks of paragraphs with varying ideas makes me wonder about its concision or structure. GA-wise, it looks like it has a good chance of passing. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 comments

I'm not big into this area, so I'll only make some brief comments. First, the article seems well sourced, and the structure flows well. Personally, I think there is too much information in this, but that could just be me, and my lack of knowledge or interest in the subject. The one glaring issue I have with the article is that the lead section is completely unsourced, which according to the MOS is a no-no Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. The page linkage seemed to be spot on, not too much, no links to non-existent pages. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually to paraphrase the very MOS you point to, the lead doesn't need to have citations if the statements have citations elsewhere in the article. As the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, an unsourced lead is completely acceptable as long as the statements are sourced in the main article body. I don't think this article makes any claims that need to be sourced in the lead as well as the article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]