Talk:Saul Gone

Bad caption

The Reception section includes an image of Odenkirk. The caption praises his performance. Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of low effort caption that editors add when they first decide they want to include an image in a section and only later as an afterthought attempt to add some kind of relevant caption. (Writing good quality descriptive captions is harder than it looks, which is why so many publications don't even bother anymore and only include the image Copyright credit and maybe indicate the person shown if you are lucky.)

The problem with this is that, at the time of writing, the Reception section does not include text to adequately support this phrasing. All the praise is presented as being for the character Jimmy/Saul. To make the caption more appropriate the Reception section would need to include text specifically praising the performance of the actor Bob Odenkirk, not just the character. (Alternatively awards nominations might indicate that his performance was praised.) Praise for the character could be intended as praise for the actor, but it seems more like praise for the writers and Vince Gilligan based on the current wording. I feel that if I had simply added a {{citation needed}} tag to the image caption editors might have misunderstood my point, and my concerns about making this a better encyclopedia article, so I wrote this longer explanation instead.

Please try to improve the Reception section or rewrite the image caption. -- 109.76.205.82 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

For non free images, there absolutely must be strong justification for its use (such as that provided for the smoking scenes). But for free images, that justification us not as critical, though the caption should reflect the prose. Masem (t) 14:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The image of Odenkirk is a free image and is not under the same onerous requirements as the non-free image of Saul and Kim smoking (which seems to be adequately justified) but I think Masem is agreeing that relevance is still importance and the caption should be better supported by the article text. Editors might consider instead to note the return of Bestys Brandt as Marie Schrader which was clearly highlighted by at least one critic (or she could be added to the Casting section).[1] -- 109.76.205.82 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The image was moved out of the critical response section.[2] That works for me. -- 109.79.171.252 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saul Gone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) 08:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I'm gonna give the article another once-over but it looks very well written so far. It's a very enjoyable read!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article is very well laid out and organized, and the plot is concise but comprehensive.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is mostly well sourced, but there are a few parts which aren't sourced. The lede mentions that the episode aired on Netflix, but this isn't mentioned in the body of the article and isn't sourced. Sourced the Netflix bit – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sources are all reliable. Twitter is used once, but only to quote a BCS showwriter who is a reliable source for the episode's creation.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article seems excellently researched with very good sourcing. There's the minor bit about the Netflix release that's still unsourced but otherwise it looks good. I'll give the article another look tomorrow but tbh it looks very good so far. Sourced the Netflix bit – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig looks all good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers all of the important information, and goes into a good amount of depth on its development and reception which are the most important parts imo.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some of the footnotes in the "Plot" section seem like WP:Trivia. I'm leaning towards removing the one about Kim's hand gesture, but including the information about episodes connected to the finale via flashback. @BuySomeApples: I mean the Kim bit is also sourced from a professional website, so I think this could stay. Also, the other episode pages for Better Call Saul that are Good Articles have information about how other episodes connect to the one in the subject – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC) OK that makes sense, especially since the gesture is mentioned in several sources that lends significance to it. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article feels very well balanced. The "Reception" is very positive, but this is reflective of critical consensus.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is really excellent, and I have only very minor edits before this one is ready.

Thank you for making these changes! @Flowerkiller1692: I noticed a couple more sourcing issues on my second read-through but after this it should be ready to promote.

• In the sentence "Gould later acknowledged that by the premiere of Breaking Bad's finale, he and Gilligan were already developing the spin-off, but when Better Call Saul's finale aired the two were working separately on new projects." It doesn't seem like the source at the end of the sentence says all this, is there another ref? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples: It does say it there "I will say, at this point when Breaking Bad ended, Vince and I were pretty far down the road talking about Better Call Saul and there’s nothing like that happening now. We’re both working on other stuff. But we’ll see what happens!" Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I missed that. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed the verbiage a little more to reflect more of Gould's quote. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Bob Odenkirk, Jonathan Banks, and Rhea Seehorn are the only cast members listed in the starring credits." This doesn't seem to be stated in the RS article, but the episode can be used as a source. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  can you give me an example page of how I can cite the episode? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course! @Flowerkiller1692: I use Template:Cite episode for things like plot and credit details. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA candidadte?

@Bilorv wanted to ask - what are the chances that this could promoted to a Featured Article? Although it's not as comprehensive as the El Camino page, I feel that this is lengthy enough that it could possibly reach that status. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My 2p is that it'd need a themes/analysis section and some rewriting in the reception section (WP:RECEPTION), but it's not a million miles off. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Might need some time to gather adequate research to make a themes section, but once I get to it I'll nominate. Thanks for your input. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, at a cursory glance I'd agree with Thejoebro64: content is good but the critical reviews are always the hardest material to get right. I would probably make an Analysis section with content from reviews and interviews/production crew that meshes well, on how the finale references other BCS/BB themes and motifs, foreshadowing, the subtext of various hand gestures and shots etc. A lot of this content is in Production.

Reception should have clear topic sentences and paragraphs that switch freely between different reviewer's comments on the subject of the paragraph (cinematography; pacing; whether it worked well as a finale; acting; cameos etc.). I mention it a lot but Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is my go-to and I always refer to it when going to improve a Reception section. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)