# Talk:Weaving a Story

In advance:  some have let this type of debate (on different shows and topics) veer into near messageboard-like conditions.  While that hasn't happened yet at all, I just want to lay out that:  1-Yes, we should mention the debate surrounding Eva 00's soul and any solid evidence the show presents, in this article, rather than cutting it out entirely 2-People have been debating this for ten years, and we will officially never arrive at a definative conclusion here.  No one side is "right".  The point of this is just to lay all of the facts out on the table in one convenient place, better enabling other fans to draw their own conclusions.  We can point out patterns and such, i.e. "everyone Eva 00 attacked was someone Naoko Akagi would have wanted to attack", but go no further.  In the end, the matter will remain unsettled.  We're just listing the information here.  I would point to the "Do Balrogs have wings?" debate (in a sense, the "soul of Eva 00" debate is the Evangelion equivalent of that, in that fans have heavily divided opinions on it but have never come to a solid conclusion and likely never will).  I do hope Rebuild or Live-Action sheds more light on this.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Weaving a Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead and plot seem fine
Production
To whom was the project published?
Maybe mentioning Weaving a Story's title could be fitting for the first paragraph.
Reception
Everything seems fine but was this the lowest rating so far or there was another one?
The lowest of the lowest!
That's all.Tintor2 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Okay, then. Done!--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 
Will be reviewing this article.Tintor2 (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

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

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

Dani Cavallaro's publications have been designated as generally unreliable sources in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Citations to her work can be replaced with more high-quality ones or removed, and the tag can be taken off once complete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)