Talk:Lilliputian Hitcher/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 10:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I'll be reviewing this article.Tintor2 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Everything looking good.

• Only few isses I see are addressing what Production I.G and Gainax are when first mentioned Got a similar response when dealing with that Jujutsu Kaisen 0 movie.
• Is it possible to balance the lead a bit? The first paragraph is kinda big in comparison to the following ones.
• "of ozone in the area" might explain a bit this in case somebody is confused.
• "Evangelion Chronicle magazine, on the other hand, noted how Okamura, in charge of producing the storyboards, blends science fiction and human drama into his works.[21]" seems fitting for the reception
• There is something important that might be missing in Plot. What's Ritsuko's focus that's mentioned in reception?

@TeenAngels1234: That's all.Tintor2 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I should have everything sorted out. The only point is the one about Evangelion Chronicle: since it is an official encyclopaedia licensed by Gainax - which I believe also gave the first-hand canon materials to write it - I don't find it pertinent to move the info to Repection.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Passing the review. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)