Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Vandalism

I think ‎93.148.155.222 is vandalizing this article removing large sections with no reason why. I'm not sure how to undo all the edits he is doing can someone please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeBK (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No, these changes are extremely beneficial and I can confirm these sources as I have just recently obtained Zettai, Understanding Anime and Manga and such. I do not have the Super/Heroes or Seeking the Self, but the information is not incorrect. Eng is a major researcher and an RS, no concerns there. I haven't gotten my hands on "the Notenki memoirs", but I have no doubts again because Cavallaro agrees. Some of the changes are removing the quotes from the refs, not exactly a problem, but not exactly beneficial if you do not have the source. Some of the changes are more in line with FA work and we should be gracious and express our thanks for a knowledgeable expert taking the time to do some good fixes. This editor knows the material and is well connected because some of these sources are things I've requested for weeks through my ILL system and only recently obtained. It is no small feat to get all these books either... but I would be glad to explain and address any concerns with the sources because I have them on hand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The only thing he's removing are the quotations from the references.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I am ‎93.148.155.222 (not logged in). I remove the quotations from the references because I think they are unnecessary. I apologize if the grammar is not correct (I'm Italian). Fortunately, even though I'm in Italy, I found books on the subject "Evangelion" (thank you, Ebay!). Also, I translate from [1] and so there may be errors of translation (I don't speak English).--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be translating from another project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is allowed and it is acceptable. We even have templates which tell users that pages can be expanded with foreign language texts. Not sure why you think otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why content from the Italian Wikipedia would be beneficial here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The content which I have translated, is largely "created" by myself, in true. So I think it's pretty much the same thing.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is fine. I wouldn't be bothered by his disagreement. English Wikipedia actually encourages what you do because it results in better coverage internationally. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see how an Italian perspective of a Japanese topic is relevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you understand Wikipedia or the added content. It is not an "Italian perspective" and even if we had a section for the Italian response that would be completely acceptable and wanted. I've done all the international releases I can find for some works because America or English or whatever region you attribute your worldview is not always the best or balanced. More perspectives = better article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how content at the Italian Wikipedia is useful for an article on a Japanese subject at the English Wikipedia. What is there that isn't here? All that's been going on with TeenAngels1234's edits is deletion after deletion and removal of extensive citation content. Nothing new has been added.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Nothing new has been added"? If so, I would have no reason to change the page. I added material on the cultural impact of the anime that was not in any wiki, in true (in this wiki and the it.wiki)... Even the simple arrangement of notes is useful (I think).--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits and they're not vandalism. I agree with the removal of quotes from references, as long as they get worked into the article prose and their content is not lost. Any additional content is welcome, whatever its origin, as long as it is reliably sourced. However, I note that TeenAngels1234 has actually removed valid and valuable content and replaced it with his own in Neon_Genesis_Evangelion#Influence_and_legacy, this should not have happened, and any new content, while welcome, should only be an addition to the whole.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, what's the problem and I hope you are not going on about the same thing Ryulong is. I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about so either back it up with diffs or drop it. Next comment like this and I'm dragging this to DRN.[2] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't need a DRN to read my comment properly and look at the article's history, as I did. If you don't have time, then hold your answer until you have it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not work that way and I don't have time to play games and guess what the problem could be as the last one predates NGE and could not possibly be a source for its themes and works. Now, please either state the problem or drop it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

FolkendeFanel, I have deleted the text of the section because ( I think) it does not explain well the cultural impact of the series (and many times the sources were inaccurate). I preferred to replace the inaccuracies that I found, but if you need to, you could add it back.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not questioning all of your additions (on the contrary they seem very good) and the previous version was far from perfect, but there are few sourced sentences that I feel deserved to stay, though I haven't thought about how they could be incorporated in the flow of your edits. Also, let's not forget about the quotes, most of which would be very useful for the "Influence and legacy" section. @ChrisGualtieri, let me sort that out with TeenAngels1234 directly, that will spare us pointless drama. I wasn't even addressing you to begin with.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't have the unofficial guide to NGE, but while I am aware of Anno's comments, they are probably more indicative of the mental state at the time and less likely to be really relevant or neutral here. Given the vandalism and the death threats sent by fans, such comments were understandable, but the perspective is somewhat lacking without proper context to the comments. While that may be borderline OR to add on Wikipedia, historical context is something which should be mentioned to give a fuller view of the picture. Overall, I think it was a good change. Though I don't exactly know why the need for the templates all the time, I normally use the rp template for the pages instead of the minimalist or redundant citations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, if fan backlash is relevant, Anno's reaction to it also certainly is, especially if it was reported by secondary sources. As for neutrality, sources and quoted comments can be as non-neutral and POV-ladden as they want, what matters is that WP equally represents all the POVs on a question. If Anno's reaction to fan backlash changed with time, then WP should also report it. If he didn't change his mind, then it's not up to WP to rationalize or excuse his behavior, "contextualizing" in this way would indeed be OR, unless it is taken from secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    • And as an expert on the matter, I agree with the changes made because putting it into context will be billed as "Synth/OR" by you. For the purposes of this article the issue is rather COATRACK and it is only something that should be discussed in RELIABLE sources. That book is godawful to begin with, filled with dozens of inaccuracies and more. I'm sure other experts and editors would identify it as such. Let me give you some friendly advice Folken: when someone claiming to be an expert or knowledgeable about a particular topic knows about the topic in deep detail, consider there input and their reasoning. I should never have allowed that stupid line to be used at all (before I GANed) and quite frankly, you have demonstrated very little knowledge of the subject and a hostile POV. Folken, the policy for neutrality is WP:NPOV, please read it and the out of context usage is unacceptable and from an unreliable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
      • You're the only one being needlessly hostile here. I've been on Wikipedia for seven years so I know my policies perfectly, thank you. WP:NPOV states that "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight" and "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution". I therefore see nothing violating WP:NPOV here as everything is properly attributed. If you raise an issue of reliability, then the same statements can be found in Protoculture Addicts and sourced from there, it even offers some sort of counterview. WP:COATRACK is just an essay, and is just so irrelevant here that I think you might have misread it. Finally, you can proclaim yourself an "expert" (whatever that means) if it pleases you, but know that it doesn't give you the last word in editorial discussions, and that this kind of behavior is nonconstructive and generally frowned upon.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And I have removed it. I disagree about your stance of experts and Jimbo gave a nice touch to it. We add "nuance" and this is definitely something that you need to understand the context before you go about throwing a fit. First of all, the editorial is an opinion piece. The first three lines show the knowledge of the editor. The entire second paragraph is paraphrasing and fairly correct interpretations of Anno's comments, but just like the M-Kun incident required context, this does as well. The otaku comments require the recent events and the editorial is "i asked a friend to translate and I am outraged, but I lack the full grasp of the situation". Take it to DRN or RSN; but we are not going to omit the history just because you found a poor excuse to reinsert some venting of a director during an emotional breakdown. If I go into further details I'd violate BLP; but quite simply - do the full thing in context or not at all. His comments are not even relevant to this article, and I am deeply concerned about this for the FA level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Context is perfectly sufficient, you're just grasping at straws. The interview itself refers to "some very scathing criticisms on the Internet" (but this is a fan's translation of a fan's translation, so we can't use it), and PA mentions "the internet fans who excessively criticized the show". What other context is there to talk about ? Attributing any other motivation to Anno's comment, if not explicitely mentioned in a RS, would be OR by synthesis, as you correctly guessed. I properly contextualized my edit by referring to "internet fans" and placing it right after mentions of the series' ending controversy, which makes me think that, as usual, you haven't even bothered to read my edit before edit-warring and throwing your pointless fit. I can always tweak it to make it clearer, but you provide no reasoning grounded in policy whatsoever.

We can certainly develop a more thorough coverage on the controversy as a whole (and PA#41 seems a good source to start that), but as far as the quote is concerned, it's verifiable and properly attributed, presented impartially (we do not portray Anno in any positive/negative way with the quote, we just accurately and neutrally describe both sides of the dispute as per WP:NPOV) and sufficiently contextualized as far as available RS allow it without entering the realm of OR by synthesis, and as the statement was first made in a prominent secondary source, and then reported and discussed in an another one about the controversy, it sure is relevant in a paragraph about the controversy and it will stay, period.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But he not talking about the fan criticism of the work itself. Why are you attributing it to that? His response was to the "Anno is dead" and such comments. That is like toilet graffiti. He said that if you were next to him and did that, he'd likely hit you, but over the internet they are in a safe place. His response to them not it was basically "大変". Do not make things up. You know nothing of Anno's past and you seem to be deliberately taking unreliable and questionable tertiary sources to construe a point that was not in the interview itself. And secondly, these quotes you attribute are invalid because this is someone the editor asked to translate and then paraphrased rather roughly, this line is telling, "I was particularly confused when my friend Miyako read me Hideaki Anno’s interview in NEWTYPE of June." - Note, read me, this was not a translation of the editor and editorials are opinion pieces by nature, but this is equivalent of playing telephone here. Please get the actual source because this is of a very different context then what was stated in the interview. While Anno criticized them of being "obtuse" or "locked in there rooms", but he definitely uses the term "Data" and arrives that "Data without analysis ends up at demagogy." Don't take my quotes as a translation, I'm paraphrasing just like the Protoculture Addicts' editor did. The entire section about the "Anno is dead" is being confused with his response to criticism here and they are completely different - it is a violation of a bunch of policies including BLP to say something he did not explicitly attribute to their criticisms and frankly, given the death threats and the breakdown, this may not even be representative and is trying to defend a negative and inaccurate assertion. You know policy and should not reinsert it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've taken this to WP:BLPN after Folken's latest reinsertion of a BLP violation with misleading and false edit summary.[3]. The section is "Neon Genesis Evangelion and Anno". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I want thorough apologies for the gratuitous personal attacks and bad faith assumptions you've just wrote against me. I don't "know nothing about of Anno's past" and I don't "deliberately take unreliable and questionable tertiary sources to construe a point that was not in the interview itself". If you are unable to refrain from trying to deride in some way or another those who disagree with you, I will take this to WP:ANI to make you stop. Consider yourself warned.

Second, you're referring to the English fan translation of the French fan translation lying around on the net and on Gwern's site. That's not reliable. The one reliable source we have paraphrasing the content is Protoculture Addicts so that's what we're going for (and yes, Claude J. Pelletier and Protoculture Addicts are fucking reliable). But even when using the English fan translation, the itw still refers to "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected [...] on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms" and that's what Anno is responding to. PA mentions "They easily and anonymously say things that they would never say in person. "Their messages are like graffiti in a public toilet." They attack other while they are staying in a safe place." so I can add something like "gratuitous attacks" (which certainly corresponds to death rumors) to "excessive criticism" because Anno definitely responds to both even in the fan translation, but anything more would be unreliable, and anything less would be inaccurate.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Take it to BLPN. The line was, "For example, someone mentions my name, saying, "Anno is dead". If that person were next to me, perhaps I might hit them. On the message boards someone can still make a rebuttal, but this remains at the standard of toilet graffiti." That is completely different from what you say. The Animag is the one I'd accept. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And Protoculture Addicts wrote: "I think the people who are very much involved with the Net," Mr. Anno said, "have very narrow views toward life and the world. They're always in their rooms and don't go out very often to communicate in person. Because of their information on the Net, they feel they know everything without searching the real truths." They easily and anonymously say things that they would never say in person. "Their messages are like graffiti in a public toilet."

how the fuck is that different ? Anno merely blames general anonymous internet behavior, which includes saying "Anno is dead" (summarized as "gratuitous attacks") and excessive criticism ("The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected [...] on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms" ).Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Remain civil and take it to BLPN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  I am civil, you're the only one who has personally attacked me and I'm still waiting for your apologies. BLPN is irrevelant when the only issue is your misreading of the interview.

  There is no difference with saying: in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared their messages to "graffiti in a public toilet". Anno concluded on the remark that "they don't have anything certain to hold on... that's probably why they watch anime shows" and advised them to "go out and visit towns". Once again, you fail to read correctly: I'm not saying Anno assimilates just any criticism with toilet wall graffiti, but the specific, excessive criticism that turned into gratuitous attacks from anonymous internet fans. Why are you unable to understand that simple fact ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I made no personal attack. You are engaging in edit warring and it is proper to remove something contentious under BLP while discussion is ongoing. You have reverted 2 users and have gone and reinstated the dubious material three times when a faithful French translation exists. Gwern's English version is also very accurate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Quoting myself: "I want thorough apologies for the gratuitous personal attacks and bad faith assumptions you've just wrote against me. I don't "know nothing about of Anno's past" and I don't "deliberately take unreliable and questionable tertiary sources to construe a point that was not in the interview itself". If you are unable to refrain from trying to deride in some way or another those who disagree with you, I will take this to WP:ANI to make you stop. Consider yourself warned."
  You are the only one engaged in edit-warring, and I see nothing contentious as it is properly sourced and attributed. Stop saying nonsense: whatever you think of the French and English translations, they are WP:SELFPUBLISHED and therefore cannot be used. I can't believe that you, who earlier tried to lecture me on policies, are unable to understand such a simple thing.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• You are grasping at straws, here. Our 2 sources say exactly the same thing, either you have difficulty understanding the English of the sources, or you are deliberately choosing elements that go your way and ignoring all the other ones. I told you several time that even Gwern's translation opens with "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected [...] on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms" and you have never answered that. My edit does not say that Anno qualified criticism as toilet wall graffiti, it says that Anno qualified messages (in general) from anonymous fans who excessively criticized him and gratuitously attacked him as toilet wall graffiti. You clearly have an issue with reading and/or communication, and that's Talk:Themes_of_Neon_Genesis_Evangelion#POV_issue_in_"Religion" all over again. I don't care why you keep doing that, I just don't have time to go around in circles until you decide to have a more careful look at what you're dealing with, just like last time. I'll just post at the RS Noticeboard to clear the matter up with Protoculture Addicts once and for all so that you can't continue to make inaccurate claims about it, and then I'll be done.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• The offending section stays out while it is under discussion at BLPN per WP:BLP specifically WP:BLPREMOVE. The source reliability and relevancy is challenged, considering the interpretation of the a third/fourth party reference and separate derived paraphrasing and the conjectural interpretation of it that is disputed by both the original source and its full translations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Your move is borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE as you have no consensus this is an urgent and valid BLP concern. You do not have knowledge of Japanese language to dispute anything, and the full translation is a self-published, unreliable source that cannot dispute a reliable source. But the full fan translation doesn't even dispute the PA editorial.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Again with the baseless accusations of what I know and do not know. The matter is simple; get the original source and read it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite my searching I cannot pull up that particular interview. It is one of the few interviews (out of dozens) that I cannot find. I doubt my academic paper from circa 2003 has that in its notes either... I picked to death the symbolism more than anything else in that paper and maybe have a link to an old website that could have it archived. All I know is that searching in Japanese is helpful, but unless anyone wants to shell out for a 2nd hand copy and pay international shipping I think I'm going to have to see about getting a contact or two to find it locally and grab it. Knowing where it is, down to the page count doesn't help, but I am confident in the French translation and Gwern's English translation of the French document. I'm not good at French, but thankfully G-san is. Haha. Maybe I can track down the original and say "here read it yourself", but this is difficult. Otherwise I think replacing it for Animage one will have to do... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we compromise and take the Animage one? I'll just throw that source up if you want; the interview was done one day before he departed for the United States. I've got about... 80 something interviews with the man, what is the obsession with "this" source by the way? Much less, why are we worrying so much about that particularly 1996 interview when it was loosely reported in PA 43? I have exhausted my personal library and I doubt Gwern has it otherwise he'd post it. Though to be really fair... the source I gave was 100% accurate and is verifiable - whether or not I currently possess the original is a moot point because you can go and find the source and verify it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning. Where is the problem with the wording of PA ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've updated my edit that way: "in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet". Anno concluded on the remark that some fans on message board "don't have anything certain to hold on" and advised them to "go out and visit towns"

Here's a break down of the edit:

"in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks" -> this will never change because that was what the interviewer asked Anno about and and it's also in Gwern's translation.

"controversial comments" because Claude J Pelletier says "I don't entirely agree with what Mr. Anno is saying. He seems to perpetuate the standard caricatural view of the nerd and introverted net surfer." This will never change.

"offensive and anonymous online messages": to make clear as what is graffiti in a public toilet. This corresponds to "Anno is dead" from Gwern's translation, and corresponds to <<They easily and anonymously say things that they would never say in person. "Their messages are like graffiti in a public toilet">> in PA. This will never change.

"some fans on message board "don't have anything certain to hold on" and advised them to "go out and visit towns"" This will never change as it corresponds to both PA and Gwern's translation. The edit makes it clear Anno wasn't commenting on just any criticism, but on online fans.

That's about all that can be done. I think every criticism of ChrisGualtieri has been addressed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Anno's comments can not be treated as a "reception." The section "reception" should contain the comments of critics, audience reactions .. not the answers to the criticisms of the director. Maybe you could put the text in the future, in an appropriate section. To be honest, I do not think even they are relevant.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, they are not relevant and the original source must be used because the editorial is incorrect. The source is Newtype Magazine June 1996, pages 10-16. I have dozens of interviews with Anno over the years and three from this same time period can be used without any interpretation. This insertion is a BLP violation and inaccurate, I've reported the edit warring. Misquoting and deliberately taking text out of context to arrive at some new conclusion is SYNTH, and when sources conflict you go with the best (the original in this case), but Folken does not want to. I'm sorry, but the source is the source and if you cannot find it doesn't mean it isn't verifiable and it does not act as a free pass to take the editorial and create a BLP issue. Folken's wording is actually worse than the original unaltered text which I was already hesitant about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We can always discuss about placement, but the insertion is accurate, not a BLP violation per the thread opened at BLPN, there is no misquoting, no new conclusion, no source conflict, and the source I'm using is reliable. I've done all I could to provide good faith tweaks to satisfy ChrisGualtieri's remarks, but I note Chris has not commented on the new edit I described above, and chose to report it instead, so I guess discussion is over.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to understand, here. My edit says "offensive and anonymous online messages" , not " fan criticism". My edits have never involved "fan criticism", but "excessive fan criticism", which isn't the same thing. I can't see how this would be inaccurate, but unfortunately ChrisGualtieri doesn't want to discuss my edit. This is getting out of hands.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick removed it and commented on it at RSN.[4][5] And I agree with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Then, using Newtype itself as a source, what kind of summary of Anno's statement regarding fans and message board would you agree on ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not using it. Plain and simple. Thank you and good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Newtype sure is a reliable source, and we have a translation that you have 100% certified accurate and verifiable for us. I see no reason not use it. So, how would you summarize it ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the conflict, unless I can provide a scan, I should not include it. Essentially, it would be the same as saying "is this OK?".[6] Now I like that interview, but I don't have a copy of Aerial Magazine to vet its accuracy. For others. Would you take "あんた、バカぁと、言われてみたい?" It is from Animage in July 1996 this was the interview one day before he departed for Anime Expo 96 and if you got the rest of PA you will see that the writer from PA (not the editorial) will cover it. I could put up some of the original Japanese, but giving the best words would be difficult. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, usually, PA's translator is Miyako Graham, the same "my friend Miyako" that is mentioned in the PA#41 editorial. What do we make of that ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm done discussing that source in circles, now please stop bringing it back up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, no Anime Expo 96 coverage, then.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Other language casts

Shall I add the foreign language casts, including the French, Italian and a few other languages? We already know the cast details and it would help deal with some of the English bias to this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Anything outside of the original Japanese cast and the English dub cast(s) is trivia at best.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/GA1. 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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. 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.

 Done 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.

 Done 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.

 Done

• 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".

 Done

• 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.

 Done

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

 Done

• 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

 Done

• 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.

 Done 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.

 Done 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.

 Done 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.

 Done - 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

 Done 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)

• @Lemurbaby: Could you strike the issues that you agree with? I did a bunch of things.[7] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done more copyediting... @Lemurbaby: 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.

 Done 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.

 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

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

 Done 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.

 Done 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

@Lemurbaby: 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)

Cast section

This section is entirely unnecessary and just taking up space. There are only a handful of articles on anime and manga that feature cast listings in this table format and they have all been produced as a result of ChrisGualtieri's sweeping changes to these articles that have no consensus. The information contained within this section is better served at the list of characters article, as it is done on every other anime and manga page on the English Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What does its removal do that improves the page? It is a clear and easy form of data presentation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A giant table listing the main cast, their Japanese voice actors, and their English voice actors is cluttering the page up. Again, this information is just as clearly and easily presented in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters and it does not need to be included on this article in the form you prefer.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ryulong, the cast info can easily be dynamically presented within the plot summary rather than taking unnecessary space with a table. Example: "Shinji Ikari (voiced by Megumi Ogata in Japan, Spike Spencer in America)".Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the cast list in the main article is good, and is something we should add to other anime articles. The cast is "real-world" information of the sort that I think should be the focus in encyclopedia articles. I think adding cast lists to our articles will improve their quality. While the character list does include the cast, it is spread out across the page, and I think it is better to also have the main cast (not the entire cast) listing in a cast list in the main article. I disagree with the idea of including the cast in the plot summary, as that seems to be mixing two very different pieces of information. Calathan (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it is jarring to include the character name and their original Japanese voice actor and/or their English voice actor upon mentioning. This is not a problem for major Hollywood movies because you deal with living people who's portrayal is iconic and identifiable without further explanation. Like Tim Curry, but would you really need to put Billy Bob Thorton after mentioning Jigo at Princess Mononoke? Different media, different information. Not everything is going to be best presented in the same fashion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a question of including "real-world information". The character lists have long been the location where casting information is retained in order to keep the main article free of unnecessary tables. This is the formatting employed by 99% of all other articles in the anime and manga subject area and it is simply an introduction by ChrisGualtieri, who has been attempting to make this and other pages examples of a new formatting that he prefers to present the information in despite the wishes of the rest of the editors in the subject area. It is unwieldy to include this information here. There is enough information on the page to present a real world context of the program that a cast list is simply superfluous, particularly when this cast is not unique to this one aspect of the series and is shared amongst the half dozen films and other projects as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm holding off until mediation is done because this will just turn into more arguing and continuing to make attacks on the editor and not the argument is poor form. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, these seem to be the exact same arguments we went through before.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

- It is just your opinion. You still haven't provided a reason why it should not be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be that all the reasons posed in your failed attempt at creating Bleach (anime) hold here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Brief music section

Ryulong, the music is important to the article and you should not just remove perfectly cited material. I've briefly covered the key composer, the theme songs and provided extremely brief information about each one. Just like briefly covering the characters is important for establishing context and assisting in the understanding of the subject, the music plays a major role and should be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The music clip does not meet WP:NFCC. You did not properly link to the article on the song that we have on the project. You did not format song titles properly. It is irrelevant to say how many times "Fly Me to the Moon" has been remixed for the series, a fact that is also poorly sourced.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. I linked to the music and the song. The file was already in use and meets NFCC. You are mad about a lack of a link so you removed the whole thing? That's not helpful at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove the whole thing. I removed music player template and the content that I discovered to be superfluous or poorly sourced. Stop accusing me of doing shit I did not do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The media is gone. I do not see your rationale for removal under NFCC. Please state it or replace it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

8. Contextual significance. There is no contextual significance for the use of the song on this page. 3a. Minimal usage. There are already many non-free items on this page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ending Theme:

"The end theme of the series was a version of "Fly Me to the Moon" arranged and sung by Claire Littley" is not correct--there are at least 20 and maybe 26 different versions of the ending theme, "Fly Me to the Moon" sung by different single and group artists--including most of the female cast members. The constantly changing nature of the final theme is perhaps one of the most interesting or significant elements in the music of the Evangelion series. For such a dense article on the series, I might expect a mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.139.37 (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Is NERV part of the UN?

Should NERV personnel be categorized as UN personnel similar to members of UNIT in Doctor Who? CensoredScribe (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing it, I don't see any mention of the UN in this article. It would seem unlikely that this would be a defining characteristic without meriting mention in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

NERV receives funding from the UN, but the personnel are not controlled or related to the UN - save those who transported the Eva that one time and are not members of Nerv. The addition would be trivial and confusing - after all, the mention is effectively a single line that has absolutely no bearing on the plot. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

SEELE isn't mentioned either, maybe this needs to be fixed. NERV is nominally part of the UN (I think Misato says this in the anime), but in practice it's just funded by the UN and uses the UN for its conventional weaponry and transport. I think I saw "UN" on a NERV personnel uniform at one point in the series or the End… —innotata 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)