Talk:Ozymandias (Breaking Bad)

Lots of good sources

See here I don't have the time/energy to add them myself but there are a treasure trove. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ozymandias (Breaking Bad)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 03:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Some Dude From North Carolina: I've addressed the below comments. DMT biscuit (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• Change all uses of Indiewire to IndieWire.
• Change all uses of TIME to Time.
• The dates in the references should be consistent with the prose so add the "Use mdy dates" template.

Infobox and lead

• Infobox looks good.
• I would remove the link to cliffhanger in the first paragraph per WP:OVERLINK.
• That being said, I would also add a link to "To'hajiilee" in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
• "freedoms then she" → "freedom than she"
• Remove the comma after "much analysis".
• Add a comma after "depiction of redemption".
• "televsion" → "television"
• "won the" → "won the award for"

Plot

• Plot is under 400 words, so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
• Remove the comma after "kill him anyway".
• "leads to" doesn't sound right. Can I suggest changing it to "causes"?
• The double use of "White home" sounds repetitive, so reword it.

Production

• In the image's caption, change "Breaking Bad" to Breaking Bad.
• Link Moira Walley-Beckett, Rian Johnson, "Fly", Betsy Brandt, and Anna Gunn.
• "Giligan" → "Series creator Vince Gilligan"
• "Fly." → "Fly".
• "self described" → "self-described"
• "thoughout" → "throughout"
• "enamoured" → "enamored"
• "inconvient" → "inconvenient"
• "or Walt" → "nor Walt"
• "his short" → "his hair short" (avoid confusion)
• "by placed" → "be placed"
• Add a comma after "barrel".
• "off screen" → "off-screen"
• "Coexecutive" → "Co-executive"
• A reference is needed for the first sentence of the last paragraph (recite it).

Analysis

• "of audience" → "of the audience"
• The quote box for the phone call should be under the header.
• "analysed" → "analyzed"
• "view it a ploy" → "view it as a ploy"
• "sympathise" → "sympathize"

Reception

• Are the mini-captions necessary?
• Link Attack on Titan in the note.
• "build up" → "build-up"
• Remove the comma after "IGN".
• "arc of victim" → "arc as a victim"
• "on the each member of White family's arcs" → "on each member of the White family's arcs"
• "appalued" → "applauded"
• "as she begun" → "as she began"
• "The show's honesty" → "the show's honesty"
• "was described" → "were described"
• "enprisoniment" → "imprisonment"
• Specify the Primetime Emmy Awards ceremony where they won the three awards.

References

• Archive all archivable sources (either manually or with this tool).
• Link each website used in every reference.
• Currently there is a "reference invoked but never defined" so fix that.
• There's also a "permanent dead link", so I would find a replacement or remove its content within the article.
• Mark references from Esquire with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Vanity Fair with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The New Yorker with "|url-access=registration".
• Add the "|via=YouTube" parameter to the reference after "earth".
• "GoldDerby.com" → "Gold Derby"
• "EW.com" → "Entertainment Weekly"

Progres

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Phone call

I have to say I just don't comprehend the analysis of the phone call Walt makes to Skyler. Walt calls and accuses Skyler of not helping him with his business. But Skyler did help Walt with his business. Walt knows Skyler helped. And Skyler knows Skyler helped.

In other words, what else could Walt's accusation that she didn't help and her decision to go along with Walt's premise during the recorded call be but an attempt to exonerate her? It couldn't be genuine anger from Walt, because that would make sense only if Skyler hadn't helped -- which she did.

Walt's call is an obvious effort to exonerate her. No other explanation makes sense.

Billmckern (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The way the paragraph is worded, to me, implies Walt knows the police are listening and doesn’t want Skyler to get in trouble with them. I think it would be more accurate and understandable to make clear Walter is speaking only to Skyler, and/or remove “He attempts to establish Skyler’s innocence.”

I do think it is likely that Walter genuinely believes Skyler was not/unhelpful. Walter is not a rational person, especially at this moment. NayR5 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop the sesquipedalianism

Using unnecessary overcomplicated Latinate words[1] is not big and not clever and it has been reverted more than once.[2] (It wasn't even the right word.[3]) I suggested the text was probably unnecessary, and after looking at the GA reviewed version I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO by removing the recently added phrase entirely.[4] -- 109.78.196.150 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like more than 3 reverts to me but he's still edit warring about this pretentious nonsense[5] and being WP:UNCIVIL and swearing about it too. I'm going to wait before reverting it again myself, but I hope other editors (@Kzqj:) will put an end to this. This goes back to July[[6]], the edit was a mistake that simply never should have been made in the first place, and to insist on trying to keep it is absurd. -- 109.78.196.150 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User was doing similar things in other places and was banned (for at least six months).[7] Editors who are not me have restored the first paragraph to the status quo (and it is pretty much the same as it was when it was reviewed for {{Good Article}} status). -- 109.78.204.166 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Get a life dude 50.46.245.173 (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)