Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 July 2021 [1].

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie[edit]

Nominator(s): Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, a sequel film to the popular television series Breaking Bad. This thoroughly researched article discusses the lengths that director and writer Vince Gilligan took to revisit a story that he concluded six years beforehand, the ideas that he used and discarded for his script, the measures he took to keep the production a secret, as well as the means that Gilligan and his production crew took to capture a certain look for the film.

I had tried nominating this a year ago, but was unable to gather enough peer reviews to get the article promoted. I decided to wait a little bit longer and be able to complete the page with the appropriate sections and photos before nominating it again. At this point I do feel the page is complete, thoroughly researched, and well-sourced to the point that it deserves a second look to be listed amongst this website's best.

— Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass the article's images were cleared during the last FAC, so I'm only checking the images that have changed. Of these, the main issue I'm seeing is File:Todd's Apartment El Camino 1.png and File:Todd's Apartment El Camino 2.png. I can see that the apartment has been the focus of critical commentary, but I don't think the fair use images really show clearly dark and light aspects so they're not adding much. I think it would not harm reader understanding to remove them, so I don't see that WP:NFCC have been satisfied here. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: I felt that since there was a clear contrast in lighting between the two images, that it would show the difference. But since you feel that these do not fit the the criteria, then I have removed them. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Bilorv[edit]

Alright, I thought this was definitely FA standard the last time and up to a couple of wording changes and nitpicks that I'm suggesting below, I think it has only improved—in some cases due to new information or developments. The new "Themes and style" section is a very good addition. "Production" now has more detail from more references, without going overboard—it's a long article (in WP:SIZERULE's liminal state with 45 kB of prose), but I don't believe it's too long.

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* "The film continues the story of Jesse Pinkman ... while the plot centers on the events that immediately follow Breaking Bad's finale" – This makes it sound like the "story of Jesse Pinkman" and the plot are two separate things. Maybe change it to "... throughout the series to become kingpins of an Albuquerque crystal meth empire; it centers on the events that ..."
    • I changed it to "throughout the series to become kingpins of an Albuquerque crystal meth empire, and centers..." if that works. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galbraith is described as "a vacuum cleaner store owner who relocates people running from the law and gives them new identities" – but it's not necessarily just people running from the law, right? Walter White wants his help initially more because of other criminals than law enforcement, if I'm remembering rightly. I guess you could say he relocates criminals or just relocates people.
    • Done
  • There's a few too many "would be" and "would" instances than I think is correct. I'd prefer at least the following to be in past tense (example given for the first one):
    • "The Alexa 65 would be used in conjunction" – just "The Alex 65 was used in conjunction"
      • Done
    • "The film's color palette would be graded with DaVinci Resolve"
      • Done
    • "As the Alexa 65 camera would be too large to carry while filming"
      • Done
    • "Cranston would indeed appear in El Camino"
      • Done
    • "representatives for AMC, Netflix and Sony Pictures TV would all decline to comment"
      • Done
    • "The livestream would be watched by over 3.5 million viewers"
      • Done
    • "Chemistry, the advertising agency behind the promotion, would later submit the campaign"
      • Done.
  • Would the sections "Cinematography", "Set design", "Exterior locations" and "Secrecy" fit as subsections within "Filming"? It's rare to see eight subsections (under "Production") with no subsections within that.
    • @Bilorv: I saw that American Beauty, Fight Club and The Grand Budapest Hotel, all featured articles and the latter of which was promoted relatively recently, had seven sections in their production sections without any subsections. Previously I had "Set Design" and "Exterior locations" combined as "Sets and Locations". Perhaps I can recombine these so it doesn't get too overboard? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah it's not a deal-breaker, but I thought that the four subsections I listed are all part of the filming process, so this would make logical sense independent of the number of subsections. But otherwise, if you choose to keep it as it is then that's fine too. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bilorv: I noticed that few other featured articles have subsections, so I decided against having them in this one. Thanks again! Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some reference formatting inconsistencies:
    • Netflix shouldn't be in italics in the first reference (mark it as a publisher, not a website/work). The same applies to Directors Guild of America, Producers Guild of America and International Press Academy in later references.
      • Done
    • Link the works (Screen Rant, The Hollywood Reporter etc.) on every mention (or alternatively, on just the first).
      • Done
    • Screen Rant should be written consistently as this, not Screen Rant.com like on the first occurrence.
      • Done
    • Penske Business Media doesn't need to be mentioned in the IndieWire references where it is, for consistency.
      • Done
    • "International Press Academy Editors" don't need to be in the "last" parameter—just remove the parameter. The title of this reference should also be rewritten in sentence case ("International Press Academy – The 24th Annual Satellite Awards").
      • Done.
  • Newsweek is not generally considered to be a currently-reliable source (see WP:RSP). I imagine others have commented on Jane being the deliverer of the final line, but if you can't find a substitute then referencing the film itself would be acceptable.
    • @Bilorv: I've tried searching for any other sources that specify this as the final line of the film and that Jane delivered it, but none have. I saw in the Reliable Source guide that we can review each article on a case-by-case basis for Newsweek. Well, since this is essentially a movie review - would it be possible just to leave it in? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (No action needed.) Just noting that there's a Forbes contributor source, which are usually treated as self-published sources (see WP:RSP)—I see this particular contributor is a respected journalist for a number of uncontroversially reliable sources, so I think we can trust that the interview is not fabricated.

Hope these comments are helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now happy to once again support promotion to FA. — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: do you need to change the subheader as well to support (as opposed to "Comments by Bilorv"), and is that needed for if this gets promoted? Asking curiously. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the mods simply search for the word "support" in bold. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the co-ordinators read the comments and see what criteria they refer to (e.g. images, prose, sources) and how thorough they are (e.g. a "support" with no comments from a new user wouldn't count for much); it's promoted if there's enough support (usually including at least one review checking images/sources) and any opposition is countered by other reviewers supporting based on the same part of the article. But I might as well change the header to "Support". — Bilorv (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Horsesizedduck[edit]

I would say that criteria 1a and 1b are fulfilled. Excellent quality, and leaves little to be added. Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horsesizedduck: does this have your support then? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support it. By the way, I didn't get notified of this ping at all, and my username was botched on the signature. What's the deal with that? Horsesizedduck (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horsesizedduck: Not sure of why you didn't get pinged, but the botched signature was a misstep of my finger. My apologies. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • I am not sure if this part, and centers on the events that immediately follow Breaking Bad's finale, from the lead is necessary. The first sentence already says that this film is an epilogue to the series so this feels unnecessarily repetitive.
    • Done
  • I am uncertain about "while" in this part, while Aaron Paul reprised his role as Jesse Pinkman. From my understanding, "while" is generally used as a transition to emphasize a contrast, and I do not see a contrast here between Vince Gilligan and Aaron Paul. I think a different word choice would be better.
    • Done. Replaced it with a semi-colon.
  • If possible, I would reword this part, making the film one of his final film appearances, to avoid saying "film" twice in such a close proximity.
    • Done. Replaced "film" with "it"
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance. I do not think "first" is needed in this part, Gilligan first began considering, as "began" already cover this so it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive.
    • Done.
  • If Albuquerque is going to be linked in the body of the article, I would link it in the lead for consistency.
    • Done. I just removed the duplicate links.
  • In the "Themes and style" section, there is a sentence with four citations. I would avoid that if possible as it reads like citation overkill.
    • Done. Good point. Moved the other citations further down.
  • There are a few duplicate links throughout the article. It seems common to link character names in the plot summary, cast list, and on their first instance after that, but if items like Albuquerque and Chevrolet El Camino should be linked multiple times in the article. My main issue is with Albuquerque, which is linked at least three times in the article (i.e. in the plot summary, the "Filming" section, and the Cinematography" section and that seems like overkill to me).
    • Done. Removed the duplicate links. Let me know if you see any more.

These are my comments so far. I have only read through the lead thoroughly right now. I have a few comments on other parts of the article, but I have only done a quick read there. Hopefully, this is helpful. I just wanted to post at least something for now. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you. All of your suggestions have been addressed. Look forward to seeing your other edits. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the prompt responses. I look forward to reading the rest of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this part, While El Camino's plot focused on Jesse Pinkman, should be in the present tense. The same comment goes for this part, the film was about Jesse transforming from a boy to a man. I believe they both should be in present tense as they are referring to what is happening in the film itself.
    • Done
  • Apologies in advance if this is super obvious. I have a question about this part, Breaking Bad was often categorized as a modern Western. What is the difference between a "modern Western" and a "neo-Western"? The lead identifies this film as a neo-Western, but later on in the article, it is described as a modern Western.
    • They are really the same term. Just movies with traditional Western themes, but take place in a contemporary setting. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would clarify the "many" in this part, Many noted the duel at the end of the film between Jesse. I am guessing that you are referring to critics, but it is always best to be as clear as possible.
    • Done
  • I would link neo-Nazi on its first mention.
    • Done
  • I would avoid using "flop" in this part, Gilligan stated that he likely would not have been able to had Saul been a flop, as it is far too informal for a Wikipedia article. I would go with something like "unsuccessful".
    • Done
  • This part, Upon pitching his idea to Sony Pictures Television, the studio behind both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, the executives, is not grammatically correct. If you read it literally, it says the executives are pitching the idea not Gilligan so it will need to be revised.
    • Done
  • For this part, and said that he had been "begging" Gilligan to release it, the "begging" quote seems unnecessary. I would instead paraphrase it.

These are my comments up to the "Music" section. Apologies for the piecemeal approach for my review and thank you for your patience. I am stopping here as it is a little after midnight for me now so this seem like a good place to pause and post further comments. Just for clarify, I will only be focusing on the prose as a source review for this FAC has already been done. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: second round is now finished. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid sentence structures like this one, with Porter citing the scenes with the compound, Ed Galbraith and Jane Margolis as examples. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I have received and seen notes in FACs to avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence structure completely.
    • Done
  • I would revise this sentence, Among other Hollywood tributes, the cast and crew of Breaking Bad paid tribute to him., to avoid repeating "tribute" twice if possible.
    • Done
  • The prose in the "Reception" section can be quite repetitive. For instance, a lot of the sentences in the second paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection begin with X critic of Y publication. I would vary the sentence structure to keep the prose engaging. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is a good resource for this kind of thing.
    • @Aoba47: Done. This was the most difficult, and I removed some references since the reviews seemed repetitive. If you have any other ways to improve this section let me know. Aside from that, all your suggestions have been addressed. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Breaking Bad (season 5) article is linked twice.
    • Done

I believe this should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed above, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. Great work with the article!

I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Some Dude From North Carolina[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. If I do not post any comments in a week, please ping me. My goal is to either post my review over the weekend or at the early part of next week by the latest. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

#Accolades
The "award" column (see this example). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: gotcha. I have made the edits. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally suggest linking nominees every time they are listed.
    • Done
  • Could a "date of ceremony" column be added?
    • Done
References
  • Mark sources from Albuquerque Journal with "|url-access=subscription".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Esquire with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Forbes with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Time with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • "Ddvid" → "David" and "|last=Matt Miller" → "|last=Miller |first=Matt"
    • Done and Done.
  • Wikilink Dave Itzkoff and sort categories in alphabetical order.
    • Done and Done. For the latter portion they are sorted in the wikiedit but do not appear sorted on the main page. Guess wiki has its own way of sorting things. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work – support. Thumbs up icon Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Article looks FAC-worthy to me. Only nitpick I could find is that the "e" in "Easter egg" should be capitalised.

Done. Thanks for the tip. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass[edit]
  • All sources look okay.
  • Referencing style is fine
  • Spot checks: 26, 30, 68, 81, 94, 124, 137, 105, 155 - all good

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks sound comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/El_Camino:_A_Breaking_Bad_Movie/archive2&oldid=1035839612"