Talk:Breaking Bad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article has numerous one-line paragraphs that need to be merged or expanded.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OVERLINK. You should not link to the same term multiple times. I delinked Vince Gilligan once before I noticed how many times you linked his article. We assume that the reader read the link the first time he read it in an article. You should not link it in every section that it appears. Same with other links. Each should generally only be linked once in the article with some exceptions that might be linked twice in the prose. WP:CAPTIONs, infoboxes and quoteboxes are exceptions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not just Gilligan. Check for Cranston and Paul. Outside the templates (including the infobox) and CAPTIONS, names should not be relinked in the main text a bunch of times.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Aaron Paul, Vince Gilligan and Bryan Cranston.jpg should probably have a {{personality rights}} tag on it since it includes two professional actors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have requested that several dozens of photos have this done to them in my experience as a reviewer and there has never been a problem doing it. Is there some issue in this case?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Also can you provide names for all 5 subjects in the WP:CAPTION?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that can pan out. The source for that photo is Flickr. RAP (talk) 23:13 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the issue is. The description page has five sources. Just include them all in the CAPTION.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please break "Breaking Bad has received widespread critical acclaim, particularly for its writing and cinematography, in addition to the acting ability of its cast." into two sentences. The in addition seems awkward as part of the long sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think the three nominations for best Drama Series are worth mentioning.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the seasons, I would like to see something from each section of the table of contents in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or expand one-line paragraphs.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~It might be helpful to put the seasons in parenthesis after the character name.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The perspective is not proper. How about something like: Bob Odenkirk as Saul Goodman (seasons #–#) an unorthodox lawyer who represents Walter White and Pinkman and advises them on underworld dealings.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~All characters are similarly off. I.E., you present critical review of the characters instead of the characters.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be editorial debate over the devotion of Skylar. Add a ref from some source or remove it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Breaking Bad episodes contains DVD and Blue-Ray details, but maybe you could solve the one-line paragraph problem by adding sentences like "DVD's were released on February 24, 2009, December 14, 2009 and July 8, 2009 in Regions 1, 2 and 4, respectively" similarly for Blue Ray.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or expand) the first two paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the latest reorganization. I suggest separate paragraph per season. Also, maybe move each season's metacritic score into relevant paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or expand one-line paragraphs.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~The comments are somewhat disorganized. Can you put them in chronological order and group them by respective season in which they occurred.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Add most notable nomination (the Drama Series streak).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- ~~You added it to the WP:LEAD, which is suppose to summarize the article, but did not add it to the main body of the aritcle.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge or expand one-line paragraphs.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This section is a lot of meaningless numbers. Are these numbers high or low? for cable? for AMC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't add context to the numbers, why not distribute them over the first paragraphs of the season articles above instead of deleting them. That way they are not a continuous sequence of numbers, but the content is WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this article on hold. The editors are encouraged to address the concerns raised herein. I will reevaluate the article in 7 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I am failing this article due to instability. There has been minor bickering through reversions going on for about two weeks. Now a new editor has undertaken a significant expansion of the article. While this expansion is great for wikipedia as a whole, there is no confidence in where consensus will settle on the direction of this expansion. I would suggest that the article be renominated after there is a period of stability in the article's structure. I commend the general responsiveness of the nominator (Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs)) and the high-mindedness of the expander, Penny Lane's America (talk · contribs). I look forward to using the improved resource in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]