Jump to content

Talk:Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this article. It's probably one of the biggest articles I've ever seen in this project so I might take some time. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the simplest section. The lead.

  • The lead suggests that there are many pilots but from what I recall is that the only other pilot besides Shinji was Rei Ayanami. Asuka was reintroduced in 2.0, right?
  • Since there are only three notable voice actors in such paragraph you could briefly say who are these actors voicing in a single sentence.
  • The second paragraph feels way too long. I would recommend splitting in "Tomoki Kyoda." and "The film, whi" since it goes from its production to its reception.
  • Shouldn't CGI be linked?

That's all for the lead.Tintor2 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot
  • I managed to understand everything properly except Seele's identity as it is linked.
Looks legit to me. I din't wrote the section, but that monolyth is obviously Lorentz Keel, the head of Seele.
Voice cast
  • I would recommend searching for a list like a Funimation site or Behind the Voice Actors to refernce this properly for verifiability.

Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Reviewed. Hope it works.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TeenAngels1234 not here (nor qualified) to do a full review - just wanted to point out that Stephanie Young, a Funimation-version VA, is not mentioned by the BTVA source at all. This one has the full cast list: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-05-23/evangelion/1.0-english-dub-cast-announced/ The url is in full reference format on Young's wikipedia article - hope this helps! Canadianerk (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preproduction
  • First place where Anno and other stuff like the End of Evangelion are mentioned in the body. They need wikilinks
  • I get the idea of Gundamizing but it might need a further explanation.
Development
  • Diebuster needs to be explained.
  • Link Khara.
  • ", which was originally supposed to be a robotic version of Sailor Moon. " Wait, the film was going to be based on Sailor Moon?
  • The writing paragraph is kinda big. Maybe the changes to Misato among others could be split.
  • Operation Yashima is not explained.
  • CGI needs a link
  • For some reason Gendo is written with a macron.
  • The sales and popularity of Beautiful World seem more important for her single article.

This is all for now.

@TeenAngels1234:Tintor2 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Tried my best.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor tidbits but still acceptable:

Release
  • "UCC Coffee, in particular, had already collaborated with Gainax during the release of End of Evangelion, producing Evangelion character-themed cans; for the release of Evangelion: 1.0, three hundred thousand cases of coffee were put on the market, corresponding to about nine million can" Seems a bit offplace.
  • "On March 5, 2021, 1.0 was broadcast in its entirety on Prime Video Japan's YouTube channel" lacks italic on 1.0
Reception
  • Things seen really well. I would suggest avoiding wikilinks for countries. Kinda too common.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Brief summa. Brief but concise. Relevant and necessary information is all present. Good prose.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]