# Talk:Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone

In case anyone's wondering, I removed the two crufty lists per WP:NOT#PLOT. Reinistalk 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I temporarily replaced it, tagged it, and now notify the Evangelion workgroup about the problem.--GunnarRene 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in that list with any real world significance, and there is no point in tagging it with {{list to prose}}, because it wouldn't merit inclusion even if it was rewritten. Reinistalk 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So there should be absolutely no information about the plot and any differences with the original, and no information about reviews, ticket sales and awards? --GunnarRene 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the empty sections. They're not stubs, just like an empty article with a stub template wouldn't be a stub.
The article should include a plot section, but one that would follow the guidelines. The changes between the movies aren't needed, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an accumulation of random information. Reinistalk 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If that is how you want it to work, I suggest you update the stub section and section help/doc pages on meta to your liking. Differences are encyclopedic indeed, but of course not on the level of detail that the list was. Significant differences, and a summary of differences is encyclopedic - trivial differences are not. --GunnarRene 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether the differences are encyclopedic is contingent on real world relevance, not on your opinion about their significance. As for the Meta help, it's so poorly written, I'm not even sure what it says. In any case, it doesn't make much sense to "expand" an empty section, so I don't think that it's the intended use, and the template docs support this, because they talk about short, not empty, sections. Reinistalk 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The meta says "empty" sections. --GunnarRene 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the word "empty" is mentioned there. So? Reinistalk 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Which means that the template is meant for empty sections (but not JUST empty sections). --GunnarRene 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just the word being there doesn't mean that, no. Reinistalk 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does. Also check out the transclusions on "what links here" and watch the log of new articles being created. You will see this happening a lot. --GunnarRene 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you should establish consensus for such a change first, but a bit of boldness is OK. --GunnarRene 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
For what change? Reinistalk 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A new rule that stubsections can't be empty. --GunnarRene 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's just common sense that you can't expand something that doesn't exist. If it was meant for empty sections, it would say "create". If an article is non-existent, it also doesn't say that you should expand it. Reinistalk 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between an empty article and an empty section. Empty sections establish an article structure, and it's an often-used working process to make empty sections from skeletons and article templates. That is why I used a template on your talk page, since you either seemed to have removed the section in error or because you're unfamiliar with this. --GunnarRene 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(undent) The template you added didn't say any of this, but instead warned me about removing "content" and welcomed me to Wikipedia. I already got my welcoming template back in '05, and there was no content in the section headline, so I don't think you can justify giving it. I also don't think that relying on an obscure point in the Meta docs helps you, since having empty sections with a template saying "This short section requires expansion." should need no comments. It's just stupid. Reinistalk 17:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The section header and its location is content. Also you indiscriminantly removed a list and a list header of both trivial and non-trivial information, which was also content.
This movie came out less than a week ago. In the future please either fix stuff yourself or bring it to the attention of other editors and allow some time for things to be improved.
If you think most of your fellow editors are stupid, perhaps you'd like to work on something else.--GunnarRene 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It was not content, because it didn't have any substantive information, and if you care to point out what exactly was "non-trivial" in the list (or even the header, according to you), please do. Also, if you feel that you've given me a reason to think that you're stupid, even though I haven't said that, there's not much that I can do. It's your own opinion. Reinistalk 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It had content - watch as the section now has content condensed from the list - unless you go and blank the section again.
It was you who said that all those people who made the template, the help page, and that use it to create article skeletons were "stupid", not me. --GunnarRene 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider the list to have been trivial. It was perhaps too lengthy and may have been better presented in prose (as previously suggested), but it was decent content. So long as Wikipedia contains pages regarding anime and movies, a summary of the differences between a 'series remake' movie and the original series strikes me as encyclopedic information that many users will find worthwhile.
As for the issue regarding the empty stub sections, why not add a sentence of content to each. That way a skeleton structure for the article could be provided without controversy. 117.102.148.72 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Being that this a remake, a list of changes from the original seems appropriate and should be (perhaps more succinctly) reinstated. 58.104.235.5 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. To me, it makes the most sense to keep information about the production in the Rebuild of Evangelion article, and reference it from that. There is just one problem with that, and that is the name of the article itself, as "Rebuild of Evangelion" is the name that Newtype gave its feature on the movies. Then again, it's not necessarily the "official" name that is used here on Wikipedia, but the most commonly recognized one. Thoughts? --GunnarRene 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Having separate articles for each movie is not necessary and it can all be contained in the single Rebuild article, which is like you said the most commonly recognized and most suitable name.Fox816 23:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that I said "information about the production". By that I meant "making-of" info. But I guess what you suggest could work too. It all depends on article size. --GunnarRene 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone knows when it's gonna be released in home video in Japan? It's been 3 months since the premiere. --T0rek 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
4/25/08 according to amazon.co.jp today.  
203.218.158.150 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bought the 1.01 release from Japan today.  The first disc is the movie release.  The second disc contains "Explanation of Evangelion 1.01", which as far as I can tell contains the movie release + intermittent subtext overlays of descriptions of important design names / personnels.  It also contain some making of scenes and PV of the 1.0 movie release.  
mmm, still no news about a Blu-Ray release? --T0rek (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Eddypoon (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the point of the film strip included with the limited edition release is that it is cut from the actual reel used at the premier screening?  If so, this detail should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.222.155 (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 

someone posted an unverified release date and publisher and i couldnt find any confirmation of it anywhere, so i removed it.  if anyone finds an appropriate citation, feel free to revert. DrIdiot (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
again, the release date was added with a citation to imdb.  however, as IMDB is often wrong about release dates, and i cannot find a similar release date elsewhere, i have deleted the paragraph.  DrIdiot (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB says the release date  for America is 22 February 2008 , but until an offical release date is anounced (or until it is released) it is best not to post any date. I agree with you DrIdiot that IMBD is often wrong about release dates.I am interested in when it will come out in English, I hope soon. - Prede (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It would have to be re-dubbed, and it is still unreleased in some parts of Asia. We might be looking at a 2009 release in the States.--Surfaced (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If it has a 2009 release it may just be released with  eva 2.0 as well in english eh? I can't wait until it comes out in english I wanna see it! - Prede (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of people are submitting changes to the article which interpret evidence in the film to suggest that the new Rebuild films may be a sequel to the original story. While I personally think this may well be likely, until further evidence in the next film (or confirmation by the filmmakers), I think we should refrain from posting opinions about the plot and what it may mean, as it is more speculation than confirmable fact. If others are with me on this, I think we should try to minimize these changes, as they are not in line with an accurate presentation of authentic fact.
LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a bundle of evidence to suggest that Anno Hideki isn't going to let this movie just go down as a remake. His poster prior to the release of RoE declared that RoE was going to be something completely new, something unprecedented. And if we all know Anno, it isn't going to be Evangelion and Anno without serious mind games. Perhaps a new section could be added with these theories? First entry, sorry if I'm doing it wrong.
*tonnas (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


### Should we mention the similarity to the final scene of End of Evangelion?
The matter has come up:  should the article mention that the final scene is shockingly similar to End of Evangelion?  That is, it already says "there's a giant streak of blood across the lunar landscape"....should we then go on to mention "this seems similar to the finale of End of Evangelion?  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No. This would be original research. We all know the main theory that's been circulating about this movie, but as long as it is not substanciated by anything concrete, we won't write the movie's plot in the light of this theory. We just describe things as they are and we don't draw subjective parallels. If the theory is proven right in the following movies, then we'll probably note it. But currently there's nothing more than that, so let's not anticipate on future developments. Our job is not to imply there could be connections while we don't know anything yet, just to describe what happens. Noticing similarities is already expressing a personal point of view, considering we don't even know what are Anno's intentions, so assuming things like that is going a bit too far. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone/Summary length (archive)
I am archiving this discussion as it was getting off-topic.  Focusing on being constructive:  would anyone else like to write a compromise version?  I liked the version that Hellbus made, and thought it struck a good balance.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article mention how much was changed?  They eliminated some funny bits, totally changing things.  Listing every single thing changed might be rather lengthy, but perhaps a few examples, or at least a note that is different.  I've only watched the first minutes of it, and notice several things already. Dream Focus (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is absolutely impossible.  We tried that once before, with the Episode Guide for the regular series, which I wrote up and tried to defend:  Wikipedia's admins and rules just won't allow it; "Original Research" and all that.  At most we can explain the basic changes, but we already did as much as we could.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Having seen the entire film, I've noticed how much has been edited out, and how little has been added in.  The end result is that the film is 23 minutes shorter than the 6 original episodes.  I believe that is a relevant fact.  Alas, my edit was undone.  Lets discuss it here please.  Wouldn't someone who has seen the series before, want to know this bit of information? Dream Focus (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay.  Well, they've been yelling at us for adding in trivia sections, so it won't get in based on that.  But more importantly:  we shouldn't compare "Rebuild of Eva 1, the adaptation-of-the- story - of the first 6 episodes" to "a recap-movie which consists-of-the-first-six-original-series-episodes-literally-edited-together-into-one-film".  Conceptually these are two separate things.  Nor does it really, accurately reflect how much was cut out or put in:  anime TV episodes typically involve a lot of "padding"; you know, wasting time on purpose by looking at a non-moving landscape as "filler" to reach the full episode length.  However, for a condensed adaptation movie, the goal is to make it move as FAST as possible and include as much as possible; thus if you notice, lots of scenes which in the original series were time-wasters (lots of shots of Shinji wandering around in episode 4) were simply cut out because they aren't ultimately necessary in a full film.  Further....Rebuild 2 is going to "adapt" episodes 8 through 19 (it seems) and throw out alot or condense it.  It just happens, by lucky accident, that the first 6 episodes form a single storyarc with something of a "stopping point".  Thus, it fits the movie-length-format well, but that's just coincidence:  you shouldn't be comparing the new Rebuild of Eva 1 movie adaptation, to "the first six episodes aired back to back".  Thus, it is utterly irrelevant that "Rebuild 1" is 20 minutes shorter, or even an hour shorter, than the equivalent part of the original series on which it is based.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

shouldnt you guys add a picture of the DVD instead of the postHaseo445 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article lists the Santa Barbara International Film Festival as the North American premiere, but I remember it being shown at Seattle International Film Festival at two separate screenings. http://www.siff.net/festival/film/detail.aspx?id=27586 97.113.121.122 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well...I consider "premiere" to be when it actually runs "in theaters", but realistically its not getting a theatrical release; and is in fact, just being shown piecemeal at various conventions.  so....yeah....--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Really? It got an Australian release, albeit only for about one screening. 124.188.145.99 (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is going to get a limited theatrical run like a Ghibli film; some have suggested it, and it would be something, but unlikely.
However, fan reports from the AFI Dallas premiere of Rebuild of Eva 1.0 said that the FUNimation representatives did indeed say that they are loosely aiming for a "November 2009" release date for Rebuild of Eva 1.0.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The information in the link has to be added to the article but I don't have time editing it in. It would be very much appreciated if someone took the time to do it. Thanks.
Eva:1.0 in N. American Theaters, Eva:1.01 on DVD in Fall
--҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 13:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Although Box Office Mojo is undoubtedly the go-to site for these numbers, it seems inappropriate to put the number in the right side box here (I'm sure I'm not using proper Wiki terminology).  It apparently only references the USA and Turkish box office grosses.  The second film grossed over $40 million according to BOM, and its records for that one are more complete.  Saying this one grossed $200,000 is clearly incorrect and makes it appear to be a massive flop - which, if it were, would likely have led to the cancellation of the next 3 films in the series.  Of course, the article itself gives the Japanese box office figure as something like $18 million.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.178.215 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 

I'm having trouble with exactly what Evangelion: 1.11 is.  Is it a remastered version of 1.0?  What ever it is, can we give the information somewhere on the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.87.22 (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC) 

Looks like it is a Blu-ray and DVD release of the film. The confusing part is when it was released https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone :
"FUNimation [...] released 1.11 on Blu-ray and DVD on March 9, 2010."
"The 1.11 DVD and Blu-ray was released on March 9, 2010. However, people who pre-ordered the movie received it early (primarily from Right Stuf and AnimeNation)."
"A Blu-ray Disc and new DVD release titled Evangelion: 1.11 You Are (Not) Alone. was released on May 27, 2009."
So am I to understand that "people who pre-ordered the movie" received it about one year early? As in: pre-ordered=May 27, 2009 and normal=March 9, 2010? --73.3.132.105 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Or,
2009-05-27=Japanese release of Evangelion: 1.11 You Are (Not) Alone.
2010-03-09=North America/Funimation release of Evangelion: 1.11 You Are (Not) Alone.
In any case, the article is not too clear on this. --73.3.132.105 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.examiner.com/x-13269-SF-Gaming-Lifestyle-Examiner~y2009m9d10-Gaming-Lifestyle-Evangelion-10-You-Are-Not-Alone-review
Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.piff.org/eng/html/news/new_piffnews_view.asp?n_code=PIFFNEWS&idx=650
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.japan-academy-prize.jp/allprizes/2008/index.html
Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20111124042616/http://animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=2305 on http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=2305
Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20111023202008/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-218222-110-wonders-of-japan-in-istanbul-for-two-remarkable-exhibitions.html on http://www.todayszaman.com/news-218222-110-wonders-of-japan-in-istanbul-for-two-remarkable-exhibitions.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719073907/http://www.pummeldex.de/news.php?action=detail&newsid=24459 to http://www.pummeldex.de/news.php?action=detail&newsid=24459
Replaced archive link x with https://www.webcitation.org/62SHlZcc2?url=http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/eIDokAQkeu-24L5C0f/browse/item/86136/4/0/0 on http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/eIDokAQkeu-24L5C0f/browse/item/86136/4/0/0
Replaced archive link x with https://www.webcitation.org/62SHn1OtP?url=http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/Ywr9rOP%3DzgXGKAYZhc/browse/item/86135/4/0/0 on http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/Ywr9rOP%3DzgXGKAYZhc/browse/item/86135/4/0/0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710134355/http://www.mania.com/evangelion-10-debut-report_article_116086.html to http://www.mania.com/evangelion-10-debut-report_article_116086.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The primary questions most anyone who'd look this up would have is: How does 1.0 relate to NGE, and what the heck is 1.1? Neither can be usefully extracted from this article. Worst of all, if discussion above is an indication, such information is actively pushed against being included. Y'all would be better of deleting this in the first place. Xenofur (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. It's probably one of the biggest articles I've ever seen in this project so I might take some time. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's start with the simplest section. The lead.

The lead suggests that there are many pilots but from what I recall is that the only other pilot besides Shinji was Rei Ayanami. Asuka was reintroduced in 2.0, right?
Since there are only three notable voice actors in such paragraph you could briefly say who are these actors voicing in a single sentence.
The second paragraph feels way too long. I would recommend splitting in "Tomoki Kyoda." and "The film, whi" since it goes from its production to its reception.
Shouldn't CGI be linked?
That's all for the lead.Tintor2 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Plot

I managed to understand everything properly except Seele's identity as it is linked.
Looks legit to me. I din't wrote the section, but that monolyth is obviously Lorentz Keel, the head of Seele.
Voice cast

I would recommend searching for a list like a Funimation site or Behind the Voice Actors to refernce this properly for verifiability.
Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Reviewed. Hope it works.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
TeenAngels1234 not here (nor qualified) to do a full review - just wanted to point out that Stephanie Young, a Funimation-version VA, is not mentioned by the BTVA source at all. This one has the full cast list: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-05-23/evangelion/1.0-english-dub-cast-announced/ The url is in full reference format on Young's wikipedia article - hope this helps! Canadianerk (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Preproduction

First place where Anno and other stuff like the End of Evangelion are mentioned in the body. They need wikilinks
I get the idea of Gundamizing but it might need a further explanation.
Development
—
Diebuster needs to be explained.
Link Khara.
", which was originally supposed to be a robotic version of Sailor Moon. " Wait, the film was going to be based on Sailor Moon?
The writing paragraph is kinda big. Maybe the changes to Misato among others could be split.
Operation Yashima is not explained.
CGI needs a link
For some reason Gendo is written with a macron.
The sales and popularity of Beautiful World seem more important for her single article.
This is all for now.
@TeenAngels1234:Tintor2 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Tried my best.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Minor tidbits but still acceptable:

Release

"UCC Coffee, in particular, had already collaborated with Gainax during the release of End of Evangelion, producing Evangelion character-themed cans; for the release of Evangelion: 1.0, three hundred thousand cases of coffee were put on the market, corresponding to about nine million can" Seems a bit offplace.
"On March 5, 2021, 1.0 was broadcast in its entirety on Prime Video Japan's YouTube channel" lacks italic on 1.0
Reception
Things seen really well. I would suggest avoiding wikilinks for countries. Kinda too common.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Brief summa. Brief but concise. Relevant and necessary information is all present. Good prose.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)