Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.

Pinging discussion participants @JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't done more than a quick skim, but I have WP:OR concerns about some sections, particularly the parts talking about the meaning of the names of various angels. References should be checked to make sure they actually support conclusions about Evangelion and aren't WP:SYNTHy. Brief bits giving background would be fine (eg, "In the Catholic tradition, Gabriel is the angel who..."), but whole paragraphs appear to lean on sources that aren't about eva at all, which is an issue. -- asilvering (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. The fact that a significant majority of the sources, especially the ones in the angels' sections, are offline and in Japanese is also a problem when there is no indication the reviewer actually spot-checked any of them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand the points of the previous users. @JoelleJay: Since the series is Japanese it's pretty obvious that some sources are in its "mothertongue". The sources are not unreliable or impossible to check: an user who knows Japanese can read them and find the original material. If a user does not know the language it's not a limit of the source. Non-English sources are allowed. Also, almost all the material mentioned in this article can be easily find in many scans and downloads online: e.g., the whole Evangelion Chronicle. I can link all of them, if you want. @Asilvering: What sources you are talking about? I know that there are many notes and it's impossible to list them all, but can you list some of them? Regarding the names of the Angels: yes, the sources are about Evangelion and its Angels. Like Evangelion Chronicle, the Red Cross Book, or the Evangelion Encyclopedia, for example. These are not sources that are discussing the religious angels alone. There's no OR in this: everything is sourced and the sources themselves discuss in detail about the symbolisms and connection behind the names.
I can give you evidence of this. There's no synthesis. The sources are clear and explicit, as per WP:SYNTH. These are just two examples I also mentioned on it.wiki: "なお、シャムシエルはユダヤ、キリスト教の神話や伝承における天使の名で、「神の力強き息子」と称される第4天の支配者。 エデンの園を守護する天使の王子でもあり、モーゼを連れて天国を案内したとされる。 「光輝の書」によれば365の軍団を率いるとされており、また、「エノク書」においては「昼」を司る天使とされ、堕天使のひとりにも数えられている ". "Incidentally, Shamsiel is the name of an angel from Judeo-Christian mythology, he's the head of the Fourth Sky and it's known as 'the powerful son of God'. He's also the prince of the angels who guard the Eden Garden, and a legend says that he guided Moses in the Sky. According to the Zohar, he guides 365 legions, and in the Book of Enoch he's the angel in charge of controlling the 'day' and it's listed among the fallen angels" (Evangelion Chronicle, vol. 10). Obviously I didn't mention all of this religious role: it would be too-long, too-detailed, and I briefly mentioned just the important part alone, like with other Angels. "かの天使の時間帯といえる日中に侵攻し、初号機を圧倒したものの、日没間近の夕暮れ刻に斌減されたのは皮肉といえるだろう". "Interestingly, Shamshel invasion happens during the day, which is the period of time of the angel [Note: of the original angel, obviously], fighting against Eva-01, but ends during sunset, at the dusk." (EC, vol. 7). Oguro on Style.fm - he personally knows Gainax members and was in charge of editing the Red Cross Book - says, after explicitly mentioning angel symbolism : "例えば、海中から登場したサキエルは「水」の天使と同じ名であるし、昼間に現れたシャムシェルは「昼」の天使と同じ名だ". "Sachiel, for example, appears from the sea and he has the name of the angel of water, while Samsiel, who appears during the day, has the name of the angel of the day". So, the first issue (WP:OR) can easily be dismissed.
Regarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, as IIRC other users agreed during the JoelleJay doubts mouths ago, we are talking about a character article, so it's pretty obvious and allowed to describe the characters also using sources like Evangelion Chronicle. Many other sources like Napier talk about the Angels, their battles and so on in detail, but we should mention the most reliable source: and Evangelion Chronicle or the official Death and Rebirth pamphlet it's more reliable than an academic. But many, and I mean many parts of the article are about their creation, the storyboards, the original scenario, academic analysis, reception, and so on. So I can not understand the point of this reassesment page. It's obviously wrong.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TeenAngels1234, my read of JoelleJay's comment is not that it's a problem per se that there are offline, Japanese-language sources, but that there is no evidence in the initial GA review that the reviewer checked any of those sources. It would be really helpful (both to allay concerns, and for the sake of readers) if you could link those sources that can be found online. -- asilvering (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure, I can give you everything! Just wait a few hours; the material is huge and I have to list all the links. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that these sources discuss the symbolism. However, at the very least anything produced by Gainax (like the Red Cross Book), Kadokawa, or their affiliates is neither secondary nor independent and so should not be a source for such wide swathes of the article. We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.
Looking at citations for the first few angels:
Adam: Source 43, 55, 59: Kadokawa Red XN. 44, 51: Cannarsi Red XN. 45: Porori ?. 46-48, 52: EC Red XN? 49: NGE Red XN. 50, 58: Horn Red XN. 53: Poggio Red XN. 36, 3: Gainax Red XN. 54, 56: Fujie & Foster ?. 57: Marc MacWilliams' blog ?.
Lilith: 60, 64: Poggio Red XN. 61-63, 73, 75: Kadokawa Red XN. 65: Porori ?. 66, 68: Ogoru? Red XN? 49: NGE Red XN. 67: EC Red XN? 36: Gainax Red XN. 69: Yoshiyuki Sadamoto interview Red XN. 70: Sanenari ?. 71: Dynit Red XN. 72: Khara Red XN. 74: Cinefacts Green tickY.
Sachiel: 76, 77, 80, 82, 38, 84, 89, 95, 99, 102: EC Red XN? 78, 79, 83, 86, 87, 91, 92, 32: Kadokawa Red XN. 81: Porori ?. 85, 90, 93: Cannarsi Red XN. 88: Platinum Booklet Red XN. 94: Davidson (1967) Red XN. 96, 97: Fujie ?. 98: Poggio Red XN. 100: ? 101: Oguro? Red XN. 103: Khara Red XN.
Shamshel: 104, 106: Porori ?. 105, 109, 111, 114, 119, 124, 126: Kadokawa Red XN. 107, 110, 115, 116, 120, 121: EC Red XN? 108, 117: Poggio Red XN. 3: Gainax Red XN. 112, 118: Cannarsi Red XN. 113: PB Red XN. 122: Davidson (1967) Red XN. 123: Oguro? Red XN. 125: Khara Red XN. 127, 128: Dynit Red XN.
That is just way too much material cited to people/commercial products with a vested financial interest in promoting NGE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that they're used in basically plot and production sections as for AM guidelines, right? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that the notability guidelines do not affect article content (WP:NNC). We need to present content in a neutral way, and we need to ensure that we are not giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint or doing original research, but that does not preclude using non-neutral sources or making reference to minor details. In other words, whether or not particular minor details are important enough for inclusion is an editorial decision, not one we have firm policy about including or excluding. For a GA, we need to show that the article is sufficiently broad and that it does not go into excessive detail, but this is a quality of the writing and not related to whether sources are independent or not. We also need to ensure that the sources are reliable and the content is verifiable. If we have evidence that any of these sources are not reliable, we should not be using them, but not being fully independent doesn't mean they aren't reliable. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Primary and/or non-independent sources can be used for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Weight of viewpoints or aspects—just as they do not establish WP:Notability of topics. TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROPORTION says, as you quoted, "reliable, published material". It does not demand that this material is fully independent. We certainly don't want to base an entire article on primary sources, because that would be WP:OR. And of course we don't want to use biased sources without correcting for WP:NPOV. If there are WP:OR or WP:NPOV concerns, we should clear those up. Likewise, if it goes into excessive detail or fan pov that is not relevant for a general encyclopedia, we should trim those sections (and move any well-researched content to a fan wiki).
But it is not a problem as such that these sources aren't fully, unimpeachably independent, unless it is causing one of those problems. JoelleJay is absolutely right to raise the concern: there are many non-independent sources, therefore it is much more likely that there are OR/NPOV/UNDUE concerns than if the article was entirely based on secondary, academic/critic sources. But the fact that many sources are not fully independent is not in itself the problem. Saying that we must follow the weight of independent, secondary sources would result in worse and less informative articles in many cases. If you think, for example, of an article on a novel: if we followed only independent sources, it is highly unlikely that we would be able to write a full, even plot summary without error. It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. In particular, they often don't give the ending! A plot summary is one of the most useful things we can have in an article on a novel, and it would be silly to not have one, or to have one that is biased towards coverage trends in secondary sources. At the same time, I'm sure anyone who has spent any time looking at novel articles on wikipedia has seen one with a plot that is way, way too long, and gets far too into the details, or one that offers the editor's own opinion on the plot. That is the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that for plot summaries it's fine to use primary and/or non-independent sources. However when it comes to any analysis of the plot, such as symbolism, we ought to be weighing the relative importance of particular information based on its coverage in secondary independent sources. This is reflected in NOT: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't know that it is actually true that It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. I have written several articles on works of fiction where I have been able to source the entire plot synopsis to independent secondary sources. But even if we grant that, it is still not a particularly good example as plot summaries are basically a carve-out from the general rule that independent secondary sources are preferred. At any rate, we do indeed need to follow the weight of independent secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources when writing articles; if primary and/or non-independent sources give much more weight to aspect A than aspect B whereas independent secondary sources give much more weight to aspect B than aspect A, we go by the latter in assessing WP:Due weight. These need not necessarily be the sources that are cited—hypothetically, one could cite non-ideal but reliable sources in the article in a way that perfectly reflects the overall literature—but when challenged, one must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the article's contents accurately and representatively reflect the overall literature on the topic. Which I suppose is kind of the same thing as saying that it's not a problem unless it causes a problem, but in this case the adherence to WP:PROPORTION (among others) has been challenged and it really is up to the ones advocating for keeping this listed as a WP:Good article to show that it reflects the appropriate literature where the article does not cite it. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I don't think it has been properly challenged here. The possibility of a problem has been raised, but not the problem itself. The editor who brought the article to GA believes this is the appropriate weight and using the appropriate literature, and has said as much. There's nowhere for this discussion to go from here unless someone in favour of de-listing it can give that editor something to refine or dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. and We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion. constitutes a proper challenge to WP:BALASP, but I suppose we could agree to disagree there. The same point was raised months ago on the talk page: Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications. The solution, if one believes that this does in fact reflect the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, is straightforward: point to that literature and demonstrate how this is true. If it is indeed the case that this reflects the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, a lot of time and effort could have been saved by simply citing that literature in the first place. As we do not solely use sources for WP:Verification but also for establishing WP:Weight, I would suggest that our best practices include citing sources that demonstrate weight even if they are not necessary for verification (typically because verification is covered by other sources). That's what I do in cases like this—or rather, I do it the other way around: I supplement the sources that establish weight with the ones that provide additional verification. TompaDompa (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is that the point seems to be missed. Secondary indipendent-sources are there. And dipendent sources are used in plot sections, like the description of the Angels and their role, and in production: explaining the meaning behing the name of the Angels and their inspiration is production, and it requires interviews from the staff and so on. I don't need Dani Cavallaro to say that Sachiel is named after the angel of the water but the original source - assuming the reliable original source is here, and fortunately that's the case. In Analyisis section, on the other hand, you can easily find how almost all the sources are indipendent: Azuma is indipendent, and so are Ortega, Napier, Cavallaro and so on. The literature is here. I can easily add a source for almost every statement about Angels role and their inspiration, but doing so is not required for GA articles, AM guidelies and common sense. We are still talking about plot and production, guys. It's the accuse that needs to explain where's the problem and show besides any reasonable doubt that this article is not worthy of the GA status - and in this case, we have to start reassessments for almost fictional character, from anime to videogames, from Tolkien to NGE itself. But that's not the case and is clearly a delusion. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to cite interviews directly; it is, in principle, perfectly possible to cite some other source that says "in an interview, person X said Y". More generally, information from primary and/or non-independent sources (even if those might be the most authoritative ones on the facts) can be filtered through non-primary independent sources that exercise editorial judgment about the relative WP:Weight of different WP:Aspects—and in fact, this very article is an example thereof, being non-primary and independent (assuming of course that there is no conflict of interest) even if it is not a WP:Reliable source as WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? It's obviously better to cite the original interview where a person said a thing than a secondary source saying it was said. It is not more helpful to our readers to cite a more distant source, not to mention that doing so runs the risk of ending up in a game of broken-telephone, which is already a significant problem both in academia and on wikipedia.
TeenAngels1234, it might help for you to add citations to the independent sources alongside the closer, non-independent sources you already have. It seems to me that that will satisfy the weighting concerns, and/or point out areas that are less often discussed and could stand to be removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is more helpful to our readers to cite more distant sources in lieu of citing the material directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is orthogonal to the question at hand here: is including this material WP:DUE in the first place? That's what we need the non-primary and independent sources to ascertain. As I said above, we can cite both kinds of sources at the same time to satisfy WP:Verification concerns (by using the most authoritative sources on the facts of the matter) as well as WP:Weight concerns (by using the sources that best demonstrate the relative weight afforded to various aspects by the overall literature on the topic). In general, citing interviews directly is neither necessary (it is possible, even if perhaps not ideal, to cite more distant sources—and in some cases we have no other choice if the interviews are not available to us) nor sufficient (because the interviews do not in themselves establish weight). TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then! I'll mention them if it can help to resolve the doubs of the other side. I'm always willing to improve the NGE articles but, please, just wait few days. I will try to do so as soon as possible, but unfortunately I'm extremely busy in these days. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some secondary independent sources. The problem is that they are not being used for large swathes of the article, and consequently those sections suffer a degree of indiscriminateness in their detail that needs to be reined in. Too much of the symbolism and interpretative background of the angels is cited to primary media directly from people involved in its production, and this falls afoul of policy: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that these are analyitic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic about "so-and-so said that the angels represented blah blah". This is a guideline about not doing original research and not inserting an editor's own opinion into the article. -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well as one other example, we have a whole section written in-universe, sourced in large part to non-independent and/or primary sources or not at all, that makes patently absurd claims like Angels are organic beings whose atomic structure has both particle and wave nature, and therefore characterized by the wave-particle duality of light. (not sourced) and The Angels' genetic makeup has a 99.89% affinity with that of humans. (not sourced in this section; it is sourced in another section where the claim is limited to one angel The arrangement and coordinates of the fourth Angel signals correspond 99.89% to those in the human gene pool. and is attributed to Ritsuko Akagi, a fictional character) and Their names and attacks have been prophesied in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient documents in the possession of a secret organization called Seele in wikivoice. These are unattributed, likely UNDUE details that egregiously mischaracterize real things. How much of the rest of this 150kb article contains similarly inappropriate and misleading material? JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarify, just because the note is not immediately after the sentence it doesn't mean the sentence it's unsourced. If you read the sources mentioned in the paragraph, every single sentence is sourced. These are not controversial statements about the NGE lore - surprisingly, since in NGE almost everything is controversial - , but at least having the bare minimum knowledge of the sources and reading them before writing here would be helpful and appropriate. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably reacquaint yourself with WP:PSTS; authorized/official books and the like are primary sources, and a) don't count for notability, and b) aren't what the majority of any article text should be based on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly aware of that guide, thanks. The article is not based on primary sources, altgough like in every GA of fictional characters I used them as for guidelines. PS are of course necessary, allowed and used with common sense. In no way we have to mention Mechademia while discussing Anno inspirations, but I mentioned Anno interviews on their creations instead. And, again, the fact is thar this article is not based on PS: Mechademia is mentioned various times, together with Cavallaro, Napier, CBR, Anime News Network, Cannarsi - no one of these people are involved in NGE production - and so on. Since more than a third of this article - a reasonable portion, like almost every GA about fictional character- is about their production, development, inspiration, it's perfectly fine and allowed. This is perfecrly in line with Anime and Manga guidelines.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannarsi was directly involved in producing the Italian version of NGE, he is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being involved in the Italian dub doesn't mean being involved in the NGE production, but OK, that's not the point and Cannarsi is not the focus of this. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it appears that these authorized/official books are not all primary sources, but are secondary sources (just not independent ones). They don't count for notability, but they are the most authoritative source. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider "indipendent" every source which is not directly made by NGE staff and people involved in its production or promotion, like A&M guidelines and If I can add common sense say, Oguro commentary is indipendent too. He edited the RCB, which can be listed as a dipendent source, but his commentary is something he wrote as a fan. Same for Poggio, Cannarsi and most importantly Evangelion Chronicle: they are edited and published by DeAgostini Japan and Sony Magazines, but not Gainax - they just allowed its publication. Porori is not a Gainax member and is not involved in NGE, so even the The Essential issues are indipendent. My suggestion is that the user who proposed this nomination is not so much into the sources and did not check them before starting this reassessment. This was also discussed with other users before, so it seems they didn't even read the TP. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those (or at least most of those) are still "not independent" for the purposes of notability. But you don't need to worry about notability and I'm not sure why Fuchs brought it up. The topic is very evidently notable. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm genuinely confused too. Thanks. BTW, regarding the secondary sources and materials used: I think almost everything can be found here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the excessive number of images that are not directly related makes this article arguably fail criteria 6b. Do we really need an image of a double chromosome in this article? I doubt it. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always considered that image fitting because of its link to the sceen depicting Shamshiel analysis in the fifth episode, but if you think it's not relevant/pertinent we can easily remove it. Are there other images that you think are not relevant? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These images are egregious. We do not need two Dirac-related images just because, according to non-independent non-physicist sources, one episode apparently attempts to explain a characteristic of one angel as being maintained using an inverted AT Field, within which extends a number-imaginary space,[284] a parallel dimension named Dirac Sea. Not least because it legitimizes an amateurish misrepresentation of the Dirac sea (since when is this purely theoretical model a "parallel dimension"?). JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dirac sea of the series is a parrallel dimension, not Dirac theoretical original model. It's literally written in the article. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Okay, done, Quicole. I deleted basically all the images not directly depicting the Angels. Not sure about Sachiel's cosplay. They usually are not inserted in articles on en.wiki, but it can be helpful for a reader to actually see the Angel's design without a screenshot under copyright. But as you prefer. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, Asilvering, TompaDompa, David Fuchs, TeenAngels1234, and QuicoleJR: is there any consensus on whether this article meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently adding other indipendent sources. I've added more than 100 of them now, so now we have more than 200+ notes to indipendent sources, but it will took me at least other 2-3 days to cover the whole list of Angels. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image use is a lot better, and I believe that the article has been improved enough to meet that criteria. I don't know enough about the other issues brought up here to make a judgement about them, but if and when the consensus is that those are solved, then I support retaining. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article still has an over reliance on primary and non-independent sources, and still suffers from extreme bloat. To take a random example, we get a whole paragraph that's mostly describing who the Biblical Adam is and the etymology of the name:

According to the Old Testament book of Genesis, God created Adam, the first human being, in His image. On the etymological origin of the name Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Modern: 'Adam, Tiberian: ʾĀḏām) have been formulated several theories, for which it would mean "earth", "red" or "created".[45][87] God then creates Eve, the first woman, from Adam. In the twenty-first episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion, it is revealed the Evangelions were similarly created from biological material from Adam.[88][89] In the Jewish Kabbalah, Adam is described as a kind of deity, a being that is capable of giving life and as an entity to which all things are destined to return at the end of time. According to writers Kazuhisa Fujie and Martin Foster, in the series Kaworu Nagisa states those who come from Adam must return to Adam referring to this tradition.[90]

Versus something summarized, directly related to Neon Genesis, and focused. It's also full of weird nonsense like "According to the writers" as if they said something about the subject, but it's actually just quoting a character in the series, not the writers (and thus falsely implies a perspective of the character is fact or what the writers actually believe.) I don't think TeenAngels has understood the main thrust of the issues; simply dumping more citations in isn't solving the systemic problems with the article, which require a much more fundamental rewrite and reappraisal of what's being included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The etimology is related to NGE as the series speaks of the Red Earth Purification. It needs a rewriting process to make it more explicit/relevant and the article needs to be summarized at the end of the process, which did not end - so, TNX, but I think I got what other users said before. But, again, it will took me at least other 3 days, since I don't live for Wikipedia and nobody pays me for writing here. The page mentioned in the note, anyway, reads, after the Kaworu's quote et cetera: "In the Kabbalah, Adam is described as the beggining of all things, and the being to which all must revert. In other words, God". As I said before to another user, if you want to be helpful in this process, and most importantly if you want to your opinion to be considered valid, you have to read the article and the sources before writing here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The academic sourcing has improved some matters of DUE, though I agree with David that the article, which remains a staggering 150kb, still contains a lot of details that are justified only by primary/non-independent sources (like According to a guide on the series contained in a manual for the card game Neon Genesis Evangelion RPG (新世紀エヴァンゲリオンRPG, Shinseiki Evangerion RPG), there is a connection between the Angels; each Angel seems to be an evolutionary outgrowth of the previous one, and the fact they attack one at a time suggests they are aware of the status of each of the other specimens and react accordingly.), are presented in-universe (the Dead Sea Scrolls issue, for example), or are just nonsensical (To verify the nature of an Angel, Nerv analyzes a wave diagram of unidentified objects, which is indicated by the expression "Blood Type: Blue".). Not every detail mentioned in passing by even secondary independent sources needs to be reflected in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and as I said we need to do a relatively fast work of cutting. But I will do this at the end; since it's very easy to summarize or cut things, it's better to do the more complicated work before. I normally do these kind of things in one afternoon, but be patient. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a third opinion especially after the sudden inactivity from this reassessment.Tintor2 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Angels_in_Neon_Genesis_Evangelion/1&oldid=1227099094"