# Talk:He was aware that he was still a child

This review is transcluded from Talk:He was aware that he was still a child/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Z. Patterson (talk · contribs) 23:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I will be reviewing the article. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: The article looks well-written and stable and appears to have WP:NOR.  I have some points to address.
In the line "like Lot's wife in the Book of Genesis tale of Sodom and Gomorrah", I would suggest changing "tale" to "account" to keep WP:NPOV.
Comic Book Resources sources after 2016 are not WP:RELIABLE.  Per WP:VALNET, they should be replaced with more reliable sources or removed entirely.
In the paragraph that starts with "In the episode's original script, the first Rei clone", there are three consecutive citations for Evangelion Chronicle Vol. 9.  Remove the first two citations, as one citation at the end of the sentence that ends with "this description alludes to 'scientific arrogance'" should be sufficient for citations from the same source.
In the paragraph that starts with "Several scenes in the twenty-first-to-twenty-fourth episodes", place the citations in numerical order for the phrase, "which were later released in the Japanese editions of the series".
In the paragraph that starts with "According to Dennis Redmond, in the episode", two consecutive in-text citations are for the same work by Patrick Drazen.  We need only one citation in this circumstance.  Remove the first citation for his work at the sentence that ends with "egg-like soup from which light and darkness were separated".
In the paragraph that starts with "Some reviewers, while still praising the episode", two consecutive in-text citations for the same source, The Anime Café, appear.  Remove the first citation for the sentence that ends with, "'without getting confused in timelines'".
If these changes are made, I will pass this as a good article. Z. Patterson (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: Thank you for this review. I think I fixed everything. The only suggestion I just partially followed was the WP:VALNET. While I normally agree that CBR is not the best source as for the RSN, WP:AM/ORS says that "from 2016 to mid-2023" it can be used as a situational source. I want to keep the info of the IMDB rating to show the episode popularity among the general public, and since quoting the original website is not enoguh for WP, at least we have a secondary report of that rating. But I'm not gonna keep this at any cost at all; if you think we should entirely remove that part, that's still fine, you are absolutely free to remove it by yourself.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@TeenAngels1234: I am passing this as a GA.  It appears to be stable, has no obvious problems, has no original research, is comprehensive, and is well-written.  Good work. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)