Talk:Nippy (Better Call Saul)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is GA-quality except in "Critical response".
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * See my comments on New York Post and "all_about_saul".
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm delighted to see the progress being made in Better Call Saul articles and the teamwork that goes into them. Lots of positives here. The article is broad and focused, with all the content I'd expect in an episode article. There's good use of free images and a detailed fair use rationale for the promotional poster. The plot summary is a good length (330 words, with a 400 word limit from MOS:TVPLOT). There's no issues with copyvio, stability etc. Spotchecks didn't raise any verifiability issues. I do have a couple of concerns that need to be addressed for the GA criteria, and some smaller nitpicks that might improve the article:


 * It's quite unfortunate as the information would be quite good, but the tabloid New York Post is not a reliable source due to issues with fact-checking and corrections.
 * ✅ removed the parargraph altogether – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What makes the Instagram account "all_about_saul" reliable? Moreover, how do we know the filming was done entirely within October (particularly given readjustment's to accommodate Odenkirk's heart attack)?
 * ✅ removed the parargraph altogether – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:ROTTEN warns against using the Tomatometer figure for such a small sample: However, if Rotten Tomatoes has a sample of 10 reviews for an independent film, the sample is not large enough for the score to be statistically accurate. I'd normally suggest quoting the Critics Consensus but it's actually just a copy-and-paste job of their Consensus for the sixth season as a whole.
 * The most difficult part of episode articles is the "Critical response" section and I think it needs more work here. Take a look at Copyediting reception sections. The prose is fine, but by GA I expect to see more structure to the section. For instance, you might lead with quotes about the episode's structure (bottle episode, low-stakes), then go to comments on the writing/humor, and then to casting/acting comments. I think there's probably more to pull from these reviews: for instance, presented with the quote "brilliant and wholly unexpected stand-alone episode" (Vulture), I'd have no idea which episode or even which series this was written about. (Also note that Vulture gave it a five-star rating.) There's more reviews as well if you want them—Den of Geek, The A.V. Club. I'd like to see at least two or three paragraphs that flow well, where comments are clearly organised by theme/subject.

Nitpicks:
 * ... disrupting the timing of the scheme, but Gene buys time ... – To avoid repetition of "time" in quick succession, the latter part could be "... but Gene delays ..."
 * ✅ – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ... the third Better Call Saul episode to be directed by Michelle MacLaren after the first season's "Mijo" ... – I think a comma is needed following the word "after" to change the meaning from "it was the third time it happened since 'Mijo' and 'Breathe'" to "it was the third time it happened; the first two were 'Mijo' and 'Breathe'".
 * ✅ – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The cab driver Jeff, who had previously been portrayed by Don Harvey, was recast to Pat Healy – More concise as "The cab driver Jeff, previously portrayed by Don Harvey ..."
 * ✅ – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Healy had originally auditioned for the role of Jeff – Slightly simpler as "Healy originally auditioned for the role of Jeff".
 * ✅ – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Healy says in the podcast (13:10) that he also auditioned, prior to Jeff, to play Jimmy's dad (Charles McGill Sr.), which is a small fact that could be interesting to mention.
 * I will let someone else add that in – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Healy emphasized that the recast was not due to Odenkirk's heart attack during the production of a previous episode in the sixth season, as he was cast before that. – This took me a minute to understand. It's pedantic, but the meaning is that the recast was not due to scheduling changes after Odenkirk had a heart attack. With addition of a source that mentions that filming had to accommodate Odenkirk's health, we could say something like: The recast was unrelated to the filming changes to accommodate Odenkirk's health after a heart attack during production of a previous episode in the season, as Healy had already been cast by then.
 * ✅ – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in Production is a bit lengthy, so could do with splitting—perhaps one paragraph on Jeff and one on the other characters (including Burnett's).
 * ✅ – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "walk like you've got hemorrhoids." and "... I was practically falling out of my chair because I was laughing so hard." – The period should go outside of the quotes per MOS:LQ.
 * ✅ just removed it since it came from an unreliable source – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Bob Odenkirk also received praise for his performance as Jimmy McGill/Gene Takavic – Perhaps simpler just to say "performance as Gene Takavic", as he's acting in that role for the whole episode and that Gene is a guise for Jimmy has already been mentioned.
 * ✅ – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This is on hold for seven days, but I'm happy to give more leeway if progress is being made. Looking forward to bringing this up to GA status! — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I notice is not too active.,  and : I know you've worked on some of these in the past—could you help out on this one? I'll leave it for 48 hours to see if someone expresses interest. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can make edits to the other sections, but it's gonna take a bit to go through reviews and create new copy specific to the episode, especially with the details not as fresh in my mind currently. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the reply. If you could do what you can, that'd be fantastic. I'll check back in a week and if progress is actively being made then I can give further leeway. Whether it's within this particular GA review or outside it, I'm sure we can get this article to GA-quality. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Been out sick for the last week so I haven't had a chance to make edits. Hope to have time to do it this upcoming week. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your work on this! I believe just the Reception section issues are outstanding. Are you able to take a look at this? — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bilorv Honestly I am not sure if I'll be able to get to it any time soon. Will ping you if I ever do. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's okay,, I think you have been able to make some big improvements to the article.As the issue with the Reception section is something of substance, I'm not comfortable passing the article at this time and it's been a few weeks now so it's a fail for GA. I'll upgrade the assessment to B-class, though. I'm happy to look at a GA2 review if anybody does manage to have another go at the Reception section. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)