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

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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)

Let's start with the simplest section. The lead. That's all for the lead.Tintor2 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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?


 * 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.

Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Voice cast:
 * I would recommend searching for a list like a Funimation site or Behind the Voice Actors to refernce this properly for verifiability.
 * Reviewed. Hope it works.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

This is all for now.
 * 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.

Tintor2 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Tried my best.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)