Strawberry Panic!

Previous peer review

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I need this article to get a peer review to get it ready for FAC. It recently passed a GAR, and is much better than what it was even a month ago, but a lot of work still has to be done for this one to get a chance at it's second FAC. I am aware that one of the major issues at this point is a thorough general copyedit, too. Thanks, 十八 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are some things I noted, I recommend you to use Tokyo Mew Mew as an example:

• Per Wikipedia:Lead section, try not to add references to the lead, since it is all referenced in the article. Make a short mention of the reception in the lead givng a general overview from reviewers.
• The plot should give a description of the series until the end; it does not need references unless it confirms a something that was not explained in the series. If not create a theme section with the aspects of the series.
• The characters seem a bit overdetailed to be the main article, I would suggest to see if you can merge the character section in the plot and add a see also template with the List of Strawberry Panic! characters article.
• The last sentence of Internet radio show needs reference.

Are both of the PS2 covers needed? -Malkinann (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suppose not; the original (limited edition) cover'd be kept in that case. And I don't see how the characters can be overdetailed when at most there's 2 sentences to a character, leading to about 6-7 lines per school, or 20 lines in all just for the characters; is that really too much?--十八 10:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Accessibility yet? That's something that's looked on well at FA level. -Malkinann (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]