Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 12:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * I'll be doing a more complete copy edit and review shortly. Comments will be added below:


 * Please move all the citations out of the lead and into the body of the article.
 * This is not necessary and not required. Contentious claims should be sourced, even in the lead.
 * There are no contentious claims in the lead, so no need to source them. There is also content in the lead that is not discussed in the body. Per MOS all content in the lead should only summarize what's in the body; it shouldn't contain anything original. That's why the refs need to be moved out to the body - along with the insertion of the content they support.
 * ✅ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is over-linking in the article. Per the MOS, only link a term on its first use in the lead, first use in the body, first use in the infobox and first use in an image caption.
 * ✅ While not required, I fixed some of the linking issues. Not all represented a good removal, such as the cast list.


 * Mention early on, in the lead and in the body, how many episodes there were.


 * Is it "Second Impact" or "Impact"? If both are used but you're opting to use Impact for brevity, you'd want to put this alternative in parenthesis after the first use of "Second Impact".


 * In the intro, it is unclear whether or how the public is aware of Angels and GEHIRN's intentions behind the creation of the Evangelions, given they believe an asteroid was the cause of the Second Impact.


 * Characters section - "represent different things to different viewers" - could you reword this to remove the vague word "things"?


 * The first sentence of the Production section isn't clear. What is Aoki Uri? It was unclear how it related to the first sentence so I removed it, and then tried to find another way to express what I understood to be the general idea. Please revise this if I've changed the meaning to be incorrect.
 * I am not sure if it is necessary. It was a project that was never completed, but the idea of "not running away" was used for Shinji and other undisclosed themes. It was a sentence or two in most sources and is parroted, but never really expanded on in any of my sources.


 * Wikilink the correct anime for "Yamato" in the Production section


 * The Production section needs to be reorganized so that information is presented in chronological order and grouped together in a logical way. For example, all elements related to story should be clustered together.
 * This is chronological and grouped together. Could you expand on where the problem exists?
 * Para 2: It's a cluster of unrelated trivia. Is there a way to organize this so it has some logical flow? Para 4: Second half of paragraph from sentence beginning "Fearing censorship and not..." is unclear and needs rewording to make sense. All of para 5 needs to be rewritten for clarity and correct grammar.
 * ✅ Headache inducing trying to fix that, but its done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are numerous examples of incorrect or awkward grammar and vocabulary choices as well as misspellings throughout the text and citations - have a careful read through to make corrections, and request assistance from a native English speaking copy editor if necessary.
 * A non-native speaker did a major amount of work here. I'll reparse it through, but could you point out the problem section or text?
 * The examples just above illustrate the issue. I already fixed much of the organization and grammar issues in the article myself, but there were so many that it was taking far too long and I had to stop. Normally it's something the nominator or a copy editor should do, not the GA reviewer - and if a reviewer raises this as an across-the-board issue, it's not realistic to ask them to identify every example of the problem in the text. If the nominator isn't confident in their English fluency and their ability to identify systemic problems, they should have the article peer edited before submitting it for GA. I'd recommend more closely re-reading and editing the Anime articles you're working on before nominating them for GA to help the reviews go smoother (and to attract reviewers faster, since this unreadability is likely to put them off or get the article a quick fail). These articles attract a lot of editing from people who don't speak English as a first language, which makes the prose an area that will need your particularly close attention.
 * Again, much of the added issues were not mine. I'm going to do a through copy edit in a moment. I am a native English speaker, but unless I really sit down and read word-for-word aloud, my brain skips over the errors because I know the material. I haven't actually given it a proper copy editing in the first place now that I think about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Make sure incomplete sentences as image captions do not end in a period; only complete sentences should use end punctuation in image captions.
 * Not sure of where the problem is... or if there even is a problem with it.
 * I noted it as a problem in several places, most of which I fixed myself (but not all). Check the image captions for incomplete sentences with periods at the end and remove.
 * ✅ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done - the last image of the race car has an incomplete sentence as a caption, and it ends in a period currently. I will make the change myself, this time, but keep an eye out for this in your other nominations.


 * Revise the first two sentences of the plot summary. The sentence beginnings are too similar and come across as redundant, and there are grammatical errors to fix. The expansion of the plot is good, although possibly overly detailed. What do you think? I also believe the average person who's never seen the series might be lost reading this - I'd recommend simplifying the description of the events with a focus on the outcome rather than the action. And would you please review the entire section for encyclopedic quality of word choice and grammar?
 * I reworked the first part, but the plot is really complex and I've already cut down a lot of the intrigue and limited the roles of the characters. I'm worried about losing context. Though I could do a bit more.
 * So is this done? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am giving the whole thing a final copy edit now. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The grammar problems continue in all sections from "Themes" on down (which is where I stopped editing). Have a look and make fixes.


 * Move the reference to religion from Allusions into Themes. The Themes section should be expanded to at least summarize everything discussed in the larger separate article.


 * I would either rename "Allusions" to "Inspirations" or move the content into the production section in the discussion on how the project was developed. This could be done by first stating what the sources of inspiration were, then identifying examples of how these inspirations manifest in the series itself.
 * ✅ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ref needed for Evangelion 3.0


 * The film section needs some expansion. Treat it like a two or three paragraph summary of all those other main articles on the Evangelion films.


 * First para in Releases needs a ref
 * I pulled the cites from a website which shows and details the information - anything more specific and you'll get primary source citations which really do nothing unless you have them. After all what episodes are on what DVD seems a little bland for a citation... but if you insist this is possible.
 * When I say a reference is needed, it is any reliable reference you can find that sources the info. Is the website you used reliable? Then that's what you'd want to cite, because it's the source you used.


 * Be consistent in your use of italics for foreign language terms. Either always, never, or on the first appearance of the term only.
 * ✅ - Works are italicized, but words like "otaku" are not. So this means that the sacred texts are italicized, even though they are Japanese. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fix Miller shortened references to year 2012, not 2010
 * I hate this citation style... it is so confusing for me to check. But it looks fixed already... did you do it yourself? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't fix it, but someone else has now.


 * There is overlap between the Other Media, Merchandising, Film and Releases sections. Either find ways to keep the content distinct, or possibly re-combine the content in these sections differently
 * ✅ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This still needs work. I will give it a try.


 * The "Other Media" section needs references and expansion. I would dedicate a full paragraph to summarizing the key points about the manga (how many, how long, who, when, how much money it's made, key differences etc) and another about the video games with similar kinds of information. Saying the manga "ran for 18 years" is unclear - does this mean publishing house X reprinted for 18 years? Or the entire series took 18 years to print? Or...? The music deserves a whole paragraph, and possibly a separate section, especially since it was released in CD format. Finally a fourth para could discuss all the other bits - art books etc. Also review and strengthen the wording in this section.
 * I'll fix it, but I am worried about it being cut as "redundant". I've had precious little time as of late, but yes it took 18 years to finish... but it was not a steady release schedule.
 * It's not redundant if it's just a paragraph (~4 sentences) on each - the main articles are so much longer, so this is merely providing a paraphrased summary of the content found on the main article.
 * I made some changes myself. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Characters section should be expanded. Describe each of the characters here - their role, motivations, personality and appearance - including the regular ones and recurring ones. Good examples are found in the GA articles for The Legend of Korra and The Powerpuff Girls.
 * Didn't go overboard here and took from the voice actors and Anno.
 * These edits don't fix the issue. Think about this from the perspective of a person who has never seen Evangelion. They don't have any concept of what these characters look like, their personalities, their motivations, anything. A couple of sentences for the main characters at least and at least a few adjectives for the main recurring characters is what's needed here. The content currently in this section could almost work better in a discussion of the design of the series.
 * Did more work. Is this better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These are very good additions.


 * Expand the "mini-lead" paragraph under the Other Media heading to briefly touch on the different subsections to be discussed below. No need to add many details or any references here.


 * Put all dates in the same order - either day month year, or month day year. Also make sure the month is spelled out in all instances (including the citations) for consistency with the text.


 * Add something more about who Misato is when she is first mentioned in the characters section.


 * The lead also needs to be expanded to 3 or 4 good-sized (5-7 sentence) paragraphs. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment - this article is well on its way and would be very close to GA if the above recommendations are followed. I am going to stop reviewing this now, because the problems a copy edit will solve are distracting me from the larger issues related to content. Please let me know if you are able to make these changes within the next seven days, and I will come back and complete the review. Otherwise I will fail the GA and encourage you to renominate it once the above issues have been addresses. I really want to see this pass, so I hope you'll move ahead with this. Best, Lemurbaby (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll fix them. The character section goes against the "MOSAM", a contentious issue in the project. I will do your changes, but I have a feeling that editors will be quick to edit war into failing this article because a character page exists. I agree that the article page should cover the key characters and do so briefly. It is important to cover the information in one topic and not piecemeal them out, if the reader cannot get what they need on one article, they should not go to another and hop back to continue reading with proper context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the MOSAM? How does the section go against this? Does it go against it as it is currently, or as I'm asking you to change it to become?

Comment (from an editor of the article) Related to the "broad coverage" aspect, there is a potential issue with Themes of Neon Genesis Evangelion, where a lot of critical/academic analysis has been moved, which in my opinion deprives the main article of important coverage and prevents it to be "broad" enough to meet the GA criteria. I think a merge back to NGE would be appropriate, and that will probably be the source of a dispute which won't make the article stable enough. I acknowledge the article is definitely on the right track for GA, but per this issue (and others), this is definitely WP:TOOSOON.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should re-read what you are linking to. And frankly, the non-English speaker did a massive amount of bad grammar and wording issues that I now have to redo, but your merging does little to actually improve the coverage of this page. Especially since a large amount of content covers the movies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the appropriate place to discuss the page or whether we merge it or not. I just wanted to notify the reviewer that this issue will arise soon.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not coming up soon. You have caused more than enough stress and I ask you not to disrupt this GAN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a personal attack, Folken. However, Chris, if the page is subject to a merge dispute, that would be a legitimate cause to hold the GAN until it was resolved, and you can't try to obstruct that discussion just because you want a GA pass. --erachima talk 21:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voicing your concerns, Folken and Erachima. I don't agree that the content in the Themes article should be moved back into this one. It's very long and would overbalance the rest of the article. Numerous other articles have followed the convention of creating separate articles for overly long sections in the interest of keeping the main article readable and balanced. What I'd want to see is that the themes section here be well organized and well written, and that it comprehensively summarize the content of the separate article. That would enable it to meet GA criteria. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Had little time, put some notes up, I'll need to copy edit it tomorrow during lunch. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did some copyediting. I'll do more, but I've really been pressed on time. Is it helping clear up the confusion? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any input. I did some more work on the character section... but I'm having some difficulty in understanding what you are looking for here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you strike the issues that you agree with? I did a bunch of things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done more copyediting... are you still here? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm here - WP didn't let me know changes had been made, even though I have this on my list of pages followed. I will come back to you over the weekend. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I struck the issues that have been addressed. There are a few that are still outstanding and a couple of new ones, but we're almost there. I am still copy editing the later half of the article and hope to have that done by the end of today. If you can fix the points above, we should be through with this review soon. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Expand the "mini-lead" paragraph under the Other Media heading to briefly touch on the different subsections to be discussed below. No need to add many details or any references here.
 * ✅ Removed it because the section is not of sufficient size to warrant a mini lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Put all dates in the same order - either day month year, or month day year. Also make sure the month is spelled out in all instances (including the citations) for consistency with the text.
 * ✅ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Add something more about who Misato is when she is first mentioned in the characters section.
 * ✅ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work


 * The lead also needs to be expanded to 3 or 4 good-sized (5-7 sentence) paragraphs.
 * ✅ Should be good now, but I did not go over 400 words. Can do more if you feel it is necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Great

Alright that should take care of that. You are a tough reviewer, I think this is closing in on FA now! Hah! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Once I'm done with the last copy edit, I'll pass the article. I'd recommend that you do a top-to-bottom copy edit of all the other articles that are going through the GA review process now. Even with this one I'm still finding sentences that were clearly written by a non-native speaker that you missed in your edits. It happens when we spend lots of time looking at the same material over and over (believe me, I know), so you might want to have someone else copy edit them for you. Let me know as each article gets copy edited and you have begun working your way through the other review comments, and I will start striking the points you have addressed. - Lemurbaby (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor from Italy has only edited this page I believe, but agreed. I am finding issues even in my old GA of some awkward wordings that I missed in my old copy edit. The problem is that I am far from being the best copy editor and I need some mentoring to help catch such things. I printed out the 14 page article and hand checked it through, going back every once in awhile to re-read it. Clearly, being a native speaker and writer does not automatically result in very high level or professional prose. To be fair, I spot errors in other people's prose much better than my own for reasons I don't understand - even separated by months from my own work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)