Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
Semi-Automated Tools
User scripts for GAR:
|
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{ @GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
Before opening a reassessment
Opening a reassessment
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~
to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment{{
subst:GAR}}
to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}}
at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~
on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.Reassessment process
Closing a reassessment
To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
{{
subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~
. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.Disputing a reassessment
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 |
Talk notices given |
---|
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project |
The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{ GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
Back in April, I expressed concerns on the article's talk page about outdated demographics information and significant uncited text. As these issues with
the GA criteria have not be resolved, to GAR we go.
Hog Farm
Talk 00:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
As noted on the talk page by
Slgrandson and myself, the article contains significant material lacking inline citations (e.g. most information about the last three Games) meaning the article does not meet
GA criterion 2b).
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
GA from 2011, and hasn't been reviewed since. Currently looks more like a Start-Class article than a GA. There are tags (mostly citation needed) EVERYWHERE, every section needs major work and cleanup. Article needs serious changes to remain a GA. JpTheNotSoSuperior ( talk) 01:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
An older GA from 2007, with a bevy of primary and old sources (the most recent author died in 1905). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. The article has nearly doubled in size, so I would like other editors to review my work to make sure it's still up to standards. Steve7c8 ( talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
A 2009 GA that no longer meets the criteria in its current state. Filled with sourcing issues (such as IMDb), poor prose, a section that has had an expansion tag for two years, unreferenced sections (personnel), among others. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Significant portions of this article are uncited, one existing source has no page numbers.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 12:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
On 5 March, Sergecross73 tagged this 2012 GA as needing cleanup, noting on the talk page that the article was "well below GA standards" and contained "unsourced content, trivia, sloppy stuff, etc." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒 Greenish Pickle!🥒 ( 🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle ( talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)
An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.
Pinging discussion participants @ JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
particular minor details are important enough for inclusionis an editorial decision, not one we have firm policy about including or excluding. For a GA, we need to show that the article is sufficiently broad and that it does not go into excessive detail, but this is a quality of the writing and not related to whether sources are independent or not. We also need to ensure that the sources are reliable and the content is verifiable. If we have evidence that any of these sources are not reliable, we should not be using them, but not being fully independent doesn't mean they aren't reliable. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.Primary and/or non-independent sources can be used for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Weight of viewpoints or aspects—just as they do not establish WP:Notability of topics. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.JoelleJay ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot.I have written several articles on works of fiction where I have been able to source the entire plot synopsis to independent secondary sources. But even if we grant that, it is still not a particularly good example as plot summaries are basically a carve-out from the general rule that independent secondary sources are preferred. At any rate, we do indeed need to follow the weight of independent secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources when writing articles; if primary and/or non-independent sources give much more weight to aspect A than aspect B whereas independent secondary sources give much more weight to aspect B than aspect A, we go by the latter in assessing WP:Due weight. These need not necessarily be the sources that are cited—hypothetically, one could cite non-ideal but reliable sources in the article in a way that perfectly reflects the overall literature—but when challenged, one must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the article's contents accurately and representatively reflect the overall literature on the topic. Which I suppose is kind of the same thing as saying that it's not a problem unless it causes a problem, but in this case the adherence to WP:PROPORTION (among others) has been challenged and it really is up to the ones advocating for keeping this listed as a WP:Good article to show that it reflects the appropriate literature where the article does not cite it. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE.and
We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.constitutes a proper challenge to WP:BALASP, but I suppose we could agree to disagree there. The same point was raised months ago on the talk page:
Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications.The solution, if one believes that this does in fact reflect the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, is straightforward: point to that literature and demonstrate how this is true. If it is indeed the case that this reflects the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, a lot of time and effort could have been saved by simply citing that literature in the first place. As we do not solely use sources for WP:Verification but also for establishing WP:Weight, I would suggest that our best practices include citing sources that demonstrate weight even if they are not necessary for verification (typically because verification is covered by other sources). That's what I do in cases like this—or rather, I do it the other way around: I supplement the sources that establish weight with the ones that provide additional verification. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Angels are organic beings whose atomic structure has both particle and wave nature, and therefore characterized by the wave-particle duality of light.(not sourced) and
The Angels' genetic makeup has a 99.89% affinity with that of humans.(not sourced in this section; it is sourced in another section where the claim is limited to one angel
The arrangement and coordinates of the fourth Angel signals correspond 99.89% to those in the human gene pool.and is attributed to Ritsuko Akagi, a fictional character) and
Their names and attacks have been prophesied in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient documents in the possession of a secret organization called Seelein wikivoice. These are unattributed, likely UNDUE details that egregiously mischaracterize real things. How much of the rest of this 150kb article contains similarly inappropriate and misleading material? JoelleJay ( talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
maintained using an inverted AT Field, within which extends a number-imaginary space,[284] a parallel dimension named Dirac Sea. Not least because it legitimizes an amateurish misrepresentation of the Dirac sea (since when is this purely theoretical model a "parallel dimension"?). JoelleJay ( talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the Old Testament book of Genesis, God created Adam, the first human being, in His image. On the etymological origin of the name Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Modern: 'Adam, Tiberian: ʾĀḏām) have been formulated several theories, for which it would mean "earth", "red" or "created".[45][87] God then creates Eve, the first woman, from Adam. In the twenty-first episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion, it is revealed the Evangelions were similarly created from biological material from Adam.[88][89] In the Jewish Kabbalah, Adam is described as a kind of deity, a being that is capable of giving life and as an entity to which all things are destined to return at the end of time. According to writers Kazuhisa Fujie and Martin Foster, in the series Kaworu Nagisa states those who come from Adam must return to Adam referring to this tradition.[90]
According to a guide on the series contained in a manual for the card game Neon Genesis Evangelion RPG (新世紀エヴァンゲリオンRPG, Shinseiki Evangerion RPG), there is a connection between the Angels; each Angel seems to be an evolutionary outgrowth of the previous one, and the fact they attack one at a time suggests they are aware of the status of each of the other specimens and react accordingly.), are presented in-universe (the Dead Sea Scrolls issue, for example), or are just nonsensical (
To verify the nature of an Angel, Nerv analyzes a wave diagram of unidentified objects, which is indicated by the expression "Blood Type: Blue".). Not every detail mentioned in passing by even secondary independent sources needs to be reflected in the article. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing
Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
Semi-Automated Tools
User scripts for GAR:
|
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{ @GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
Before opening a reassessment
Opening a reassessment
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~
to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment{{
subst:GAR}}
to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}}
at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~
on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.Reassessment process
Closing a reassessment
To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
{{
subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~
. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.Disputing a reassessment
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 |
Talk notices given |
---|
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project |
The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{ GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
Back in April, I expressed concerns on the article's talk page about outdated demographics information and significant uncited text. As these issues with
the GA criteria have not be resolved, to GAR we go.
Hog Farm
Talk 00:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
As noted on the talk page by
Slgrandson and myself, the article contains significant material lacking inline citations (e.g. most information about the last three Games) meaning the article does not meet
GA criterion 2b).
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
GA from 2011, and hasn't been reviewed since. Currently looks more like a Start-Class article than a GA. There are tags (mostly citation needed) EVERYWHERE, every section needs major work and cleanup. Article needs serious changes to remain a GA. JpTheNotSoSuperior ( talk) 01:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
An older GA from 2007, with a bevy of primary and old sources (the most recent author died in 1905). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. The article has nearly doubled in size, so I would like other editors to review my work to make sure it's still up to standards. Steve7c8 ( talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
A 2009 GA that no longer meets the criteria in its current state. Filled with sourcing issues (such as IMDb), poor prose, a section that has had an expansion tag for two years, unreferenced sections (personnel), among others. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Significant portions of this article are uncited, one existing source has no page numbers.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 12:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
On 5 March, Sergecross73 tagged this 2012 GA as needing cleanup, noting on the talk page that the article was "well below GA standards" and contained "unsourced content, trivia, sloppy stuff, etc." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒 Greenish Pickle!🥒 ( 🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle ( talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)
An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.
Pinging discussion participants @ JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
particular minor details are important enough for inclusionis an editorial decision, not one we have firm policy about including or excluding. For a GA, we need to show that the article is sufficiently broad and that it does not go into excessive detail, but this is a quality of the writing and not related to whether sources are independent or not. We also need to ensure that the sources are reliable and the content is verifiable. If we have evidence that any of these sources are not reliable, we should not be using them, but not being fully independent doesn't mean they aren't reliable. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.Primary and/or non-independent sources can be used for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Weight of viewpoints or aspects—just as they do not establish WP:Notability of topics. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.JoelleJay ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot.I have written several articles on works of fiction where I have been able to source the entire plot synopsis to independent secondary sources. But even if we grant that, it is still not a particularly good example as plot summaries are basically a carve-out from the general rule that independent secondary sources are preferred. At any rate, we do indeed need to follow the weight of independent secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources when writing articles; if primary and/or non-independent sources give much more weight to aspect A than aspect B whereas independent secondary sources give much more weight to aspect B than aspect A, we go by the latter in assessing WP:Due weight. These need not necessarily be the sources that are cited—hypothetically, one could cite non-ideal but reliable sources in the article in a way that perfectly reflects the overall literature—but when challenged, one must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the article's contents accurately and representatively reflect the overall literature on the topic. Which I suppose is kind of the same thing as saying that it's not a problem unless it causes a problem, but in this case the adherence to WP:PROPORTION (among others) has been challenged and it really is up to the ones advocating for keeping this listed as a WP:Good article to show that it reflects the appropriate literature where the article does not cite it. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE.and
We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.constitutes a proper challenge to WP:BALASP, but I suppose we could agree to disagree there. The same point was raised months ago on the talk page:
Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications.The solution, if one believes that this does in fact reflect the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, is straightforward: point to that literature and demonstrate how this is true. If it is indeed the case that this reflects the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, a lot of time and effort could have been saved by simply citing that literature in the first place. As we do not solely use sources for WP:Verification but also for establishing WP:Weight, I would suggest that our best practices include citing sources that demonstrate weight even if they are not necessary for verification (typically because verification is covered by other sources). That's what I do in cases like this—or rather, I do it the other way around: I supplement the sources that establish weight with the ones that provide additional verification. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Angels are organic beings whose atomic structure has both particle and wave nature, and therefore characterized by the wave-particle duality of light.(not sourced) and
The Angels' genetic makeup has a 99.89% affinity with that of humans.(not sourced in this section; it is sourced in another section where the claim is limited to one angel
The arrangement and coordinates of the fourth Angel signals correspond 99.89% to those in the human gene pool.and is attributed to Ritsuko Akagi, a fictional character) and
Their names and attacks have been prophesied in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient documents in the possession of a secret organization called Seelein wikivoice. These are unattributed, likely UNDUE details that egregiously mischaracterize real things. How much of the rest of this 150kb article contains similarly inappropriate and misleading material? JoelleJay ( talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
maintained using an inverted AT Field, within which extends a number-imaginary space,[284] a parallel dimension named Dirac Sea. Not least because it legitimizes an amateurish misrepresentation of the Dirac sea (since when is this purely theoretical model a "parallel dimension"?). JoelleJay ( talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the Old Testament book of Genesis, God created Adam, the first human being, in His image. On the etymological origin of the name Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Modern: 'Adam, Tiberian: ʾĀḏām) have been formulated several theories, for which it would mean "earth", "red" or "created".[45][87] God then creates Eve, the first woman, from Adam. In the twenty-first episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion, it is revealed the Evangelions were similarly created from biological material from Adam.[88][89] In the Jewish Kabbalah, Adam is described as a kind of deity, a being that is capable of giving life and as an entity to which all things are destined to return at the end of time. According to writers Kazuhisa Fujie and Martin Foster, in the series Kaworu Nagisa states those who come from Adam must return to Adam referring to this tradition.[90]
According to a guide on the series contained in a manual for the card game Neon Genesis Evangelion RPG (新世紀エヴァンゲリオンRPG, Shinseiki Evangerion RPG), there is a connection between the Angels; each Angel seems to be an evolutionary outgrowth of the previous one, and the fact they attack one at a time suggests they are aware of the status of each of the other specimens and react accordingly.), are presented in-universe (the Dead Sea Scrolls issue, for example), or are just nonsensical (
To verify the nature of an Angel, Nerv analyzes a wave diagram of unidentified objects, which is indicated by the expression "Blood Type: Blue".). Not every detail mentioned in passing by even secondary independent sources needs to be reflected in the article. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing