Wikipedia:Peer review/Shojo Beat/archive1

Shojo Beat

• 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get an idea of where the article stands. I have it tagged for copyediting, but are there any other major issues? Anything else that may need to be added/expanded on? How is the format/organization? There really isn't a good MoS for magazines, so sort of went with what seemed appropriate/natural and by looking at some GA/FA magazine articles and adapting to this particular type of publication. Goal after PR is a GA nom.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to beef up the "History" section with details, as it's a bit sparse. As usual, any tidbit of how the magazine was received helps. When I was thinking about the items an article like this would have, my immediate train of thought was: "History/development/production", "Features", "Reception/awards/cultural impact", which the article has it stands, but feel free to expand as you see fit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, on second thought, it's not that sparse, but more stuff wouldn't hurt. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yah, I am finding the reception info is some of the hardest stuff to find for magazines. They aren't reviewed very much, so mostly just circulation numbers. I think all the verifiable history is there, but will double check :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question for reviewers: are sources on each start and end of series needed in the table, or is it considered to be implicitly sourced to the magazine issues listed without the need for an inline citation? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)