Wikipedia:Peer review/Neon Genesis Evangelion/archive1

Neon Genesis Evangelion[edit]

We have been lacking an anime that has reached FA status for a long time now, and I feel that if any article has a chance of getting there, its this one. I have a feeling that all the information needed is there, and that it just needs to be cleaned up. Needs more references of course, but what else do you think needs to be done? Thank you.--SeizureDog 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts:

Wikipedia is not a repository of links policy and External link style guides.
The whole article has 5 embedded and 2 inlined references. More are needed. In example, the Underlying meanings section is a nice reading, but could very well be original research.
The images lack a Fair use rationale. Image:NGE.jpg lacks a source too.
The Sub-topics section must be named See also, see the style.

This is what I can see right now. -- ReyBrujo 01:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ReyBrujo, especially that it's a good read and on the matter of citations. I also love the movie poster. Other points:

While I hate to say it, I don't think the prose is brilliant, or at least evenly so, especially the "Plot summary."
The first paragraph of "Composition" could arguably be put in the lead, as should mention of the manga. The lead should stand on its own as an encyclopedia article. Right now, I don't think it does.
"International versions" takes up too much space in the TOC for the size of the subsections (stubby sections are a peeve of mine). Would it be possible to combine some of the subsections, say one for the USA, Europe, and Elsewhere? I also doubt it needs to be the first item in the main article. Moreover, "Neon Genesis in the United States" seems to mostly repeat what's in the USA part of "International versions," so some work on that is warranted.
Plot should be moved forward, probably to the top of the main article. Some of the stuff in "Plot" could go elsewhere, such as the mention of the Marduk Institute/rosary-beads connection
"Symbolism," "Underlying meanings," "Influences," and "Historical context," apart from needing citations, could all be merged into a larger section, say something like "Sources, allusions, and symbolism." "Influences" especially needs to delineate who and what is influence what and whom in its discussion: The discussion changes 180° in the sixth paragraph, but there's no marker for it. "Translation notes" might also do well in such a section. Would it be possible to make a second article for all of this, and merely summarize and link it in the main NGE article? That might lessen both the bloat (e.g. do we really need two interpretations of Toji and Kensuke in the main article?) and the citation issue for a FAC
The sub-sub-section heading can be removed in "Manga", merging that discussion into a single paragraph starting with "Other official manga include..."
Reading through it, I get a definite sense of the fan reaction to and speculation on Eva, but I don't get much of a sense of the characters or an explicit idea of how they interact. You can discuss the tensions among the Children, between them and the adults, and among the adults, without diving heavily into deeper interpretations. We don't learn that Shinji is scarred by abandonment, seclusion, and the responsibilities of manhood thrust upon him; that Gendo is a manipulator and (without some connotations) a womanizer par excellence; that Ritsuko lives forever in her mother's shadow (literally for all the time she spends in the Magi!); that Katsuragi is a borderline alcoholic but fiercely loyal to those she loves. The characters are complicated enough without the speculation, so more material is warranted.
Weren't there troubles getting firms to stay involved with the project? In any case, discrete production notes are either absent or buried. And echoing from Excel Saga, where are the critic's reactions? ;)
I'll keep any eye out for more. --Monocrat 17:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the lack of citations. There need to be citations that show what critical reviews have made of the series/movies. I also agree that the international version section is way too big, and that the plot section should be moved forward.

Not to hurt anyone's feelings, but on the whole, this article is nowhere near Featured status as it is far inferior to something like the Planetes article, from which this article could learn a thing or two, so to speak. I'm not sure this article would even qualify for Good Article status in its current incarnation.

- Phorque (talk · contribs) 21:43, 06 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of potential on NGE article, with all it's auxilliary articles. (there's so many articles connected to it and it's well structured). Although many of the article seems to be filled with FAN SPECULATION and not enough concrete stuff like explanations from the creators instead. This article is nowhere near ready for FA status.

It's well structured though.

An international section that is too big should not be, imho, deleted, instead balanced by expanding the rest of the section. Or move it to a new article on international NGE.

Feureau 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the NGE article for the couple of weeks to organize it and make sure info was in relevant sections. So here's my take:

A good deal of the stuff in the "Inspirations and Symbolism" section does have a source: the DVD commentary for the English release. There are also some books named on the page (and interviews) that give a lot of that information; the problem is, the sources aren't linked to the info they give, and not all of them are even listed. I personally don't have access to any of them, to cite them. But most of them do exist.
Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary and "Inspirations and Symbolism" need to be coordinated better.
International Releases needs to be shortened. Much of it could be split off into "List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media"; Other Media section likewise contains a lot of info that's on that page and doesn't need to be duplicated.
Plot was recently half-rewritten, as before it was mostly analysis and didn't contain any of the actual... you know... plot. Needs a little more plot, and editing to just plain make it better.
The auxilliary articles need a LOT of work. Some of them need to be merged.

--HKMARKS 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't looking as bad as it was before, but the one thing i noticed was the amount of {{Fact}} tags. The sections with them either need to be sourced or deleted. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]