Talk:El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 21:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll do this one, per discussion on the talk page. Hoping to get the first round of comments done by the end of Thursday. — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: just to let you know, in response to this edit, you can get a bot to archive all links in the page if you wish on this page. — Bilorv (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That certainly saved me a load of time, thank you. Rusted AutoParts 17:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I've done a full run-through of everything. If these comments are addressed (and if you disagree with any, please reply to them and we can reach agreement), and I do a round of source spotchecking with few or no errors, then I'll be very pleased to promote this one. Forgive me if my comments are a bit terse; overall, the article is very thorough and easily meets the majority of the GA criteria.

Referencing:

• Ref #39 says it's from TVGuide when it's actually from Forbes, but more significantly it doesn't seem to verify the second thing it is cited for: To prepare his score, Porter rewatched the series in order to select musical cues that he could revisit for the film. The closest I see is: [I had to] jump back [on] half of that timeline to the end of Breaking Bad again and pick up from there but I don't know that it literally means Porter rewatched the series, just that he adjusted his mindset from Saul to BB.

 Done Fixed the source. It was also the Vulture article that says this: "It’s been a few years, so first I had to go back and rewatch the series."

• This one's less of a big deal, but ref #39 also doesn't mention the songs "Sharing the Night Together" or "Static on the Radio", only verifying the text Licensed tracks were used sparingly in the film in the last paragraph. Perhaps the film itself is an acceptable source for the songs featured, but a secondary source would be even better.

 Done added new sources entirely.

• Followers were encouraged to share the countdown with the hashtag #WaitingWithHuell, in reference to the character. isn't verified by ref #55 ([1]).

 Done removed the statement altogether.

I'll keep doing rounds of spotchecks on the sourcing until there are few or no errors in a batch, so it may be worth looking through the rest of the referencing as well.

Content:

• is a 2019 American neo-Western crime thriller film — "crime" is obvious; "thriller" could do more with sourcing but seems like a good term; "neo-Western" would need more sourcing, as the A.V. Club doesn't use the term strongly enough for it to be a main label, leaving Hollywood Reporter as the lone source for it being a neo-Western rather than invoking Western imagery. I suggest adding a footnote for "thriller" with a couple of references, or an extra mention of the word "thriller" in the body (bonus points if it's someone in the production describing it as such), and removing "neo-Western".

Do we really need a source for "thriller?" I mean it's listed as one in the lone bad review by Hugh Montgomery "what we get is a fugitive thriller without the thrills..." and that is quoted verbatim in the critical response section. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Also added sources for "Neo-Western". They are located in the source I added in the image box of the actors reprising their roles, as well as a different source I added in the notebox stating that the Walter White flashback took place during "4 Days Out" Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• A Breaking Bad feature film was rumored ever since the series' finale in September 2013 — Point me to where this is mentioned (and referenced) in the body, if it is.

Seems that's a different way of putting the opening section of the Development section. I have reworded it to better reflect that. Rusted AutoParts 02:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• and noted the film as closure for fans of the series — Not sure this is a major aspect of the critical reviews quoted. I would replace it with something representative of the accolades (perhaps "and the film won a Critics' Choice Television Award and Satellite Award").

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Jesse finds Saul Goodman's "disappearer," — Needs more explanation for those who are less acquainted. Maybe "Jesse finds Ed Galbraith, a man he knows from Saul Goodman who can set people up with new identities and lives. Ed wants ...".

 Done Edited this. Hopefully this does not get reverted. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The script quickly grew to the length of an hour-long episode and eventually to two hours. Realizing that it would be more cost-effective than shooting a short episode, Gilligan decided to make his script a full-length film. — These sentences are out of chronological order, and I think the problem is fixed by just swapping their order. Additionally, from both of the sources, it seems less like [a film] would be more cost-effective than shooting a short episode and more like "A short film would not have been cost-effective".

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Gilligan stated that he hoped these scenes, along with an extended sequence with Jesse and Jane during their road trip, would be available as bonus features when the film was released on home video. — What he actually said was: When the Blu-ray comes out, we’ll have that as a deleted scene. But I think this is all a bit meaningless, as we'll find out if it is or isn't when the Blu-ray does come out. For now I'd take all that out, just leaving in a mention that an extended sequence with Jesse and Jane was filmed.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wording/nitpicks:

• The video would go further into detail — Better just as "The video went further into detail".

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• admit[ting/ted] is used a few times in the article. This word is a pet hate of mine. A tabloid favourite, it implies that readers should in some way be shocked at what they're reading; "said" or another SAID-approved word is a better substitute.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Infobox says >$6 million and ~$40,000. I think just for formality those should be "more than $6 million" and "at least $40,000" (the $40K is from reporting by 12 of the 125 theaters that screened the film, so surely it's not roughly $40K, but likely majorly in excess of it).

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article should mention the currency is U.S. dollars on the first currency mention, $125,000 (plot), rather than the second, US$6 million (pre-production).

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• accounting for the ones that did not finish watching the entire movie — I think this clause is redundant and the rest of the sentence, It was also reported that at least 8.2 million viewers watched at least a few minutes of the film during its first three days of availability, speaks for itself.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Though the bloody handprint still remained on the prop, Gilligan admitted he did not have the "heart" to clean it off, and the mark is still visible in the final cut. Gilligan stated that while the visible handprint resulted in a continuity error, as the compound flashbacks occurred before the events of "Felina", he chose to leave it in the film as an easter egg for fans to catch. — Twice as long as it should be. Could be written as: "His handprint was not removed, instead left as an intentional easter egg for fans, despite it being a continuity error."

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Days before the film's announcement, Bob Odenkirk ... — Again, too lengthy for a man not actually involved in the film. I'd shorten the quote to just "They've done an amazing job of keeping it a secret."

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Aaron Paul claimed that the initial cut — "claimed" is loaded, just "said" or a synonym is better.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• TheWrap should be in italics.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• In refs #13 (Time), #16 (Vulture) and #40 (Vulture), the website names should be in italics, I think.

What I'm seeing is italics aren't able to be added. An error message came up for me. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I should have been clearer. When you use |publisher, the name is put in normal text and when you use |website, the name is put in italics. I think these are websites so should use the latter. — Bilorv (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Potential further improvements:

This is just a comment that would hopefully be helpful for further improvement, whether for FA or just to make the article even better. There's no action required here in regards to this GA review.

• Critical reception is the hardest part of a film article and Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is the text to consult on it. The section is already GA quality and it's got a sensible structure of the comments, highlighting the connections between them. However, it's not quite FA quality. There's a bit of overquoting where paraphrasing or snappier quotes could do e.g. as Jesse grinds out the hard road he’s chosen, Aaron Paul emerges as an even more magnificent performer than his multiple Emmys attest is a sentence with more flair than critical analysis. (But it's important not to go too far the other way either i.e. not to misconstrue or exaggerate what a reviewer actually said, or write anything that's close paraphrasing.)

@Bilorv: What else could be fixed to make this an FA? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be the main issue I can see. Images should have alt text and tables should have relevant headers to comply with WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I think some of the other sections of the article have slight tendencies to use overly long quotes, particularly when it comes to Gilligan. If there are any more developments such as Blu-ray release, the article would need to keep up-to-date with those. Another go-over from top to bottom checking that the sources match up perfectly with the things they are cited for would be good. But overall there's not much stopping the article from being listed at FAC. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Let's go for broke then. I added some more insightful sources that should highlight the reviews better, removed or lessened many of the quotes in each section, and I can do alt text and tables later on. @Rusted AutoParts: want to nominate this for FA? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've listed the criteria the article currently meets in the collapse box below and once the comments above are addressed, they'll all be met. I'll give it a week for comments to be addressed, so the review is officially  On hold.

GA criteria

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/Fail:

— Bilorv (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow I woke up this morning expecting to get going on more of these but it appears some help came through. Thank you @Drovethrughosts: and @Flowerkiller1692:. Rusted AutoParts 16:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: all of your points have been fixed or addressed. Let us know what needs be done next. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made a couple of tiny changes here, in response to the edits made during the review. Spotchecks done on sources: #1, #9, #64, #69, #84, #88, #94, #97. Only issues are with the last two, and they're not major issues, which is good enough for me to check off 2(c). The issue seems to be one throughout the awards section: the references are all of nominations lists, rather than lists of winners. Presumably this is because nobody remembered to update them after winners were announced. So the two wins are not referenced, and it would also be preferable to have lists of winners on the nominations, to show that they were nominated and didn't win, which is what we use {{nom}} for (vs. {{pending}} or {{won}}). Once the awards issue is fixed, this'll be a pass. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: that has been fixed. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and that's a pass for GA. It's been great to see the collaboration on this article and during this review, and if the article reaches FAC then I'll definitely comment there. — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Bilorv: for overseeing the review. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: and @Rusted AutoParts: I am quite excited also! Glad this came together well. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)