Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Box Cutter (Breaking Bad)/archive1
- 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 not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2014 (diff).
Box Cutter (Breaking Bad) edit
- Nominator(s): Fanaction2031 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This good article is about an episode of fourth season of the television series Breaking Bad. Fanaction2031 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is pretty good, at least a solid GA, but has its main contributor User:Hunter Kahn been informed of the nomination? Does he think it is ready for FAC?—indopug (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will inform him now. Thanks! Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of the FAC nomination prior to being notified, and I haven't worked on the article for quite some time, but I see that Fanaction2031 has done a bit of work on it. I'm sure it was comprehensive and used every available source at the time that I wrote it, but I am not sure whether there have been any new sources published since then. (Perhaps Fanaction2031 is aware of this.) But in any event, I'd be happy to help in any way I can with the FAC process if it moves forward. (I'd also be happy to be listed as a co-nominator since I'm the main contributor, but that can be up to Fanaction since he first nominated it.) — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen this situation arise before. I think it would be appropriate for Kahn's name to be placed first, followed by the editor who did some recent enhancements. I have to say though Fanaction, your actions look a bit selfish to say the least.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fanaction is the second major contributor, and Hunter Kahn hasn't worked on the article in eight months. If both are happy to proceed with the nomination there's merit for review. As a religious BB fan I'll be happy to review the article (after seeing if there's additional material that could be mentioned). CR4ZE (t • c) 15:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to note I'm not accusing Fanaction of any ill intentions or anything like that. I assume he made the nomination in good faith because he legitimately thinks it could be an FA, and I don't read anything into my exclusion with the nomination. And again, I'm happy to work with him or anyone else in getting the article up to the proper standards. — Hunter Kahn 19:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not mentioning to Hunter earlier about the nomination. So where are we with this guys? Thanks by the way! Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to note I'm not accusing Fanaction of any ill intentions or anything like that. I assume he made the nomination in good faith because he legitimately thinks it could be an FA, and I don't read anything into my exclusion with the nomination. And again, I'm happy to work with him or anyone else in getting the article up to the proper standards. — Hunter Kahn 19:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fanaction is the second major contributor, and Hunter Kahn hasn't worked on the article in eight months. If both are happy to proceed with the nomination there's merit for review. As a religious BB fan I'll be happy to review the article (after seeing if there's additional material that could be mentioned). CR4ZE (t • c) 15:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen this situation arise before. I think it would be appropriate for Kahn's name to be placed first, followed by the editor who did some recent enhancements. I have to say though Fanaction, your actions look a bit selfish to say the least.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of the FAC nomination prior to being notified, and I haven't worked on the article for quite some time, but I see that Fanaction2031 has done a bit of work on it. I'm sure it was comprehensive and used every available source at the time that I wrote it, but I am not sure whether there have been any new sources published since then. (Perhaps Fanaction2031 is aware of this.) But in any event, I'd be happy to help in any way I can with the FAC process if it moves forward. (I'd also be happy to be listed as a co-nominator since I'm the main contributor, but that can be up to Fanaction since he first nominated it.) — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be taking a look at the article within the next few days. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks CR4ZE for taking the time to do this! Let me know if you find/need anything. Fanaction2031 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be doing a review as well in the near future, though I expect Kahn's name to be slapped on there asap..--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are we with this guys? Fanaction2031 (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be doing a review as well in the near future, though I expect Kahn's name to be slapped on there asap..--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from CR4ZE edit
- The Plot section should be written with as broad an audience as possible. The unfamiliarised reader has not seen previous episodes and cannot understand "who insisted that if Gale is dead, Gus could not kill them as he had planned because he would have nobody to produce meth for him". This begs the question as to why Gus is planning on killing them. Somebody like myself who has seen every episode of the show will understand this, but others won't. Would Gale to death be violating WP:EGG?
- A big problem for the article is the Production section, which is quite disorganised. The first paragraph is different facts about the production that seem to have been pieced together. For example, it begins to discuss Gale's death, but then in the second paragraph there's more explanation about Gilligan's final decision to kill him off. This information should be kept together within a paragraph. I think the entire section should be reworked as such. There may be merit in splitting off into sub-subsections.
- "the audience reaction to "Full Measure" made Gilligan and the Breaking Bad writing staff" – What was the audience reaction exactly?
- The fifth and penultimate paragraphs get into thematic analysis that doesn't really fit. Should certainly be split off, either as a sub or its own standalone section.
- Reviews to me feels lacking in concision. It would work much better if paragraphs were organised by individual aspects instead of by reviewer. The paragraphs feel too bulky and lacking flow. "However, he said it felt like [...] the two main protagonists" doesn't feel particularly relevant, but it could be reworked into a new final paragraph addressing criticisms. "could make the actor worthy of contention for an Emmy Award"—not the right word choice.
- The article needs some TLC, but the issues are not completely unassailable. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No edits have been made to the article in over four weeks. Fanaction2031, do you have any interest in this FAC? – Juliancolton | Talk 14:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me like this review's gone stale, because the nominator has barely been editing lately. On those grounds, you can take my above comments as an Oppose vote. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Per everything and above. I suggest we close this nomination.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.