Talk:Breaking Bad/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 08:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love the series so will review this over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have started reviewing this. There are a few issues which I will get to soon. First though I notice the nominator has not made any contributions to the article. While drive-by nominations are allowed, it does raise concerns over who will address potential problems raised and whether the nominator has the knowledge or skills to fix said problems.

I also made some, what I considered minor, edits to the article while reading it here. These changes were reverted with this edit. Don't quite follow the reasoning of "Unnecessary and even clumsy". Take Cranston stated that, though he enjoyed doing comedy, he decided he ... compared to Cranston stated that, though he enjoyed doing comedy, he .... The first sentence appears a lot more clumsy to me, for example without the parenthesis the first sentence reads Cranston stated that he decided he .... According to the MOS cquotes should not be used in this fashion (see Template:Cquote documentation). There is an issue with the overuse of quotes in general that I will get to later. Now I am happy for any comment or change I made to be challenged, but would also appreciate a reason given on this page. I will make no more edits to the article and detail everything else here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply can be found here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have re-replied there too. I feel that Hearfourmewesique's edits cause this article to fail criteria 1a of the GA criteria and I will be unable to pass this article if they stand. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the GA1 reveiewer. I am, of course, concerned about the uninvolved nomination. Also, I want to state that, IIRC, there was some ratings content that got deleted during prior revisions. Ratings are encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not checking the edits closely to see if there is vandalism or content dispute, but there are a lot of reverted edits for a page that was failed previously for instability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping in. Feel free to comment as much as you wish. I did look through your review and noticed that you previously failed it for instability. I feel it is stable enough at this stage. See this diff showing the changes that have occurred this month and this one showing the changes since it was nominated (nearly four months ago). If there was a serious content dispute I would expect to see tit for tat reverts or at least some mention on the talk page. The only recent dispute on the talk page is over the infobox and although it doesn't seem to have overflowed onto the article page, it looks very relevant to GA status. I will look into the ratings more closely when I get to the reception section. Are there any other concerns left over from your review? AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to comment much. I am just a bit skeptical about an uninvolved nomination. I have no other serious remaining issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
A few little things with the prose, but nothing too hard to fix
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I am going to put the overquotation issue here. Most of the Cast section consists of long quotes describing the characters. This is too much in my opinion.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
So far seems OK
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Issues with this in the previous review, but after looking through the history and talk page it does not seem a major problem this time around.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The fair use rational for the two non-free images is pretty underwhelming. I also find myself agreeing with the editor on the talk page that suggest the screenshot of the opening title is invalid as another free image is availible.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

with him in a sixth season episode of the science fiction television series The X-Files, where Gilligan worked as a writer The where Gilligan worked as a writer is a bit redundent it is mentioned in the previous section. Done
knowing of Cranston only from his well-known role as the over-the-top character Bit over done with knowing and well-known. Well-known is a bit WP:ORish too, I would suggest removing it. If he is well-known, we don't really have to say so. Done
Crew needs some references.
The quote under cast for Walter White is too long. I would look at shortening it. Same with Skyler, Jesse, Hank and possibly even Marie. In fact most of the character assessments rely too much on long quotes.
The "Themes" section is a bit quote heavy too, although I like the block quote. Some don't fit well, like of which The A.V. Club said that "the pink teddy bear continues to accuse" Done

I am going to stop there for now. This is a drive-by nom so I don't want to go to much further unless someone responds who is willing to address any concerns. I would estimate that I am about halfway through the review. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a few editors are working on this so I think I can continue. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some good work reducing the amount of quotes, but I still feel the article relies too much on them. I did a rough calculation and there are about 50 of them (one third of the total article prose consists of a quote). Considering that the lead, development history, crew, epesodes and online promotion don't have any quotes this is a high concentration. Too high in my opinion. They should be relatively easy to work into the text. AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some good work, but ultimately I think it needs someone willing to push through. I would suggest working on reducing the reliance on quotes as a starting point. AIRcorn (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]