Talk:Better Call Saul season 4/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening review Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style

In the Plot section (because that's in front of me right now, not that it's the most important or the first place with comments) the word 'homicide' could be changed to 'murder', the common term, and doesn't need a wikilink. Also, in the second paragraph, it should probably be 'and Bob Odenkirk says...' instead of 'while Bob...', because he's not disagreeing.

Done The Optimistic One (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems an appropriate length, but a bit on the longer side

Done The Optimistic One (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the style being used to summarize the plot in the lead, the actors' names in parentheses could just be removed for readability - they are detailed in the article. The first lead paragraph could also name the main cast.

Done The Optimistic One (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more context to go with AMC renewed the series for a 10-episode fourth season in June 2017 at the start of the Production section?

Done The Optimistic One (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statements in the Filming subsection are all very standalone. Since they read alright, I'm not going to say this is actionable, but it could be improved. It's also a bit jarring moving into the Casting section, which flows much better and is livelier to read.
The sentence about Lalo's introduction could be reordered a bit - I'd move the Tony Dalton mention to the end (he wasn't portraying him when he was only a mention).

Done The Optimistic One (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rest is well-written - episodes in summary style fine
Questions

Coverage

There's so much episode detail some are close to going over the summary word limit. Yet the reception and plot sections are each five sentences. Uneven coverage.
- Particularly in reviews - there are two review aggregators and one actual review, for only three episodes.
- Also particularly in plot, I guess - the lead has more plot than the plot section, too
Is there any coverage in sources about how it relates to the other seasons and to Breaking Bad?
Needs work

@Kingsif: Due to my circumstances, I'm having a difficult time with this section. So I'm going to ask Drovethrughosts; another major contributer to the BCS article, to help me out with this part of the review. I've already added some content to the review section. The Optimistic One (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

Season cover in infobox
Infobox fine
Commons images of cast
Appropriate use of episode and ratings templates
Could potentially have an awards and nom table, but not necessary here
Passes

Neutrality

Verifiability

Is there no better source than a tweet for production wrapping? Did a newspaper perhaps report on the tweet?

@Kingsif: I've tried searching for a source but I can't find any relating to season four finishing production, the ones that I find are about season five or about the show ending next year. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Optimistic One: Well, it should be alright as long as the tweet is from someone in production who can be assumed to know. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I've just checked the tweet and it's from one of the screenwriters for the show. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Optimistic One: For a renewed TV show, one of the screenwriters should be fine - if the notes below have been addressed, verifiable will pass. Kingsif (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I've already begun working on the sources, they were added way back when the season was in production/post-production which should explain the situation. I will let you know when I'm finished with this part. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources look good
Everything that needs an inline citation seems to have one
A few things in the lead have refs - do these need them?

@Kingsif: Removed one obsolete source that was added before the season started back in June '18 when the article was a draft and the season was in post-production. The other source seems fine. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the cast have refs, some not - what's the thinking behind this? A simple cast list can usually be attributed to the show, like MOS:PLOT. The ones with refs seems at random, too.

Done The Optimistic One (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs attention

Stability

The history suggests some edit tensions in the last few months
Nothing apparent on talk page
Question - there's not going to be edit wars, right?

@Kingsif: I have confidence in believing that there won't be any edit conflict on this seasons article anytime soon. Can't say the same for the upcoming fifth season. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Images fine
Jonathan Banks as Mike Ehrmantraut, a security consultant for Madrigal Electromotive is the same text as screenrant
Besides that, check looks fine
Needs attention

Done The Optimistic One (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

on hold Some work to do, more major questions in coverage. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Optimistic One: You've worked on the article in the last week, but not in line with comments in this review, which you haven't engaged with. It's been a week and you've been active a lot so you must have got the message, but I'll leave this ping and see if I get a response before closing this for no response. Kingsif (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow progression, I don't have a PC or laptop so lately I've been doing everything on my phone. I'm also trying to get the third seasons article to pass GA status at the moment. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's fine, maybe a note in the nom box would make it clear to reviewers? Kingsif (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like, I'm still interested on working on it. Just the pace would be slower than usual and I would only be able to carry out some tasks (eg. grammar fixing, removing jargon, adding sentences, etc.). The Optimistic One (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you like, if there's progress. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Now that I've got the third season over and done with, this is now my main priority. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Optimistic One: I can see there's been a lot of recent edits, are you any further with coverage/ verifiability now? Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I'm going to address verifiably above very soon. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: What do you think of the article now? The Optimistic One (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!

Kingsif (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]