Jump to content

Talk:Nippy (Better Call Saul)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNippy (Better Call Saul) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starNippy (Better Call Saul) is part of the Better Call Saul season 6 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
January 11, 2024Good article nomineeListed
March 14, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 3, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that actor Jim O'Heir consumed numerous cinnamon rolls for a scene in Better Call Saul?
Current status: Good article

Sources to use

[edit]

A person in Georgia and Masem, is this worth including? The question is "Could season six open with a whole episode of a Gene flash forward?", and that is exactly what happened, albeit not the season premiere. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A person in Georgia (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The review of this episode from The New York Times seems a lot more mixed than the other I've read.[1] The reviewer "found much of this unsatisfying" and experienced some confusion over the recasting of Jeff, and overall "It felt low-stakes and a bit broad". Strangely the review isn't listed by Rotten Tomatoes, anyone know why? Can it be included as a counterpoint? The review does conclude on a positive note, he says he "would bet that the best episodes of this show are ahead of it." Also after seeing the writer of the episode react badly to a negative comment on the internet[2] it makes me think this episode might end up being divisive like "Fly" from Breaking Bad season 3. -- 109.79.167.98 (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A person in Georgia (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nippy (Better Call Saul)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose is GA-quality except in "Critical response".
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    See my comments on New York Post and "all_about_saul".
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'm delighted to see the progress being made in Better Call Saul articles and the teamwork that goes into them. Lots of positives here. The article is broad and focused, with all the content I'd expect in an episode article. There's good use of free images and a detailed fair use rationale for the promotional poster. The plot summary is a good length (330 words, with a 400 word limit from MOS:TVPLOT). There's no issues with copyvio, stability etc. Spotchecks didn't raise any verifiability issues. I do have a couple of concerns that need to be addressed for the GA criteria, and some smaller nitpicks that might improve the article:

 Done removed the parargraph altogether – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the Instagram account "all_about_saul" reliable? Moreover, how do we know the filming was done entirely within October (particularly given readjustment's to accommodate Odenkirk's heart attack)?
 Done removed the parargraph altogether – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ROTTEN warns against using the Tomatometer figure for such a small sample: However, if Rotten Tomatoes has a sample of 10 reviews for an independent film, the sample is not large enough for the score to be statistically accurate. I'd normally suggest quoting the Critics Consensus but it's actually just a copy-and-paste job of their Consensus for the sixth season as a whole.
  • The most difficult part of episode articles is the "Critical response" section and I think it needs more work here. Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. The prose is fine, but by GA I expect to see more structure to the section. For instance, you might lead with quotes about the episode's structure (bottle episode, low-stakes), then go to comments on the writing/humor, and then to casting/acting comments. I think there's probably more to pull from these reviews: for instance, presented with the quote "brilliant and wholly unexpected stand-alone episode" (Vulture), I'd have no idea which episode or even which series this was written about. (Also note that Vulture gave it a five-star rating.) There's more reviews as well if you want them—Den of Geek, The A.V. Club. I'd like to see at least two or three paragraphs that flow well, where comments are clearly organised by theme/subject.

Nitpicks:

  • ... disrupting the timing of the scheme, but Gene buys time ... – To avoid repetition of "time" in quick succession, the latter part could be "... but Gene delays ..."
 Done – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the third Better Call Saul episode to be directed by Michelle MacLaren after the first season's "Mijo" ... – I think a comma is needed following the word "after" to change the meaning from "it was the third time it happened since 'Mijo' and 'Breathe'" to "it was the third time it happened; the first two were 'Mijo' and 'Breathe'".
 Done – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cab driver Jeff, who had previously been portrayed by Don Harvey, was recast to Pat Healy – More concise as "The cab driver Jeff, previously portrayed by Don Harvey ..."
 Done – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Healy had originally auditioned for the role of Jeff – Slightly simpler as "Healy originally auditioned for the role of Jeff".
 Done – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Healy says in the podcast (13:10) that he also auditioned, prior to Jeff, to play Jimmy's dad (Charles McGill Sr.), which is a small fact that could be interesting to mention.
I will let someone else add that in – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Healy emphasized that the recast was not due to Odenkirk's heart attack during the production of a previous episode in the sixth season, as he was cast before that. – This took me a minute to understand. It's pedantic, but the meaning is that the recast was not due to scheduling changes after Odenkirk had a heart attack. With addition of a source that mentions that filming had to accommodate Odenkirk's health, we could say something like: The recast was unrelated to the filming changes to accommodate Odenkirk's health after a heart attack during production of a previous episode in the season, as Healy had already been cast by then.
 Done – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in Production is a bit lengthy, so could do with splitting—perhaps one paragraph on Jeff and one on the other characters (including Burnett's).
 Done – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "walk like you've got hemorrhoids." and "... I was practically falling out of my chair because I was laughing so hard." – The period should go outside of the quotes per MOS:LQ.
 Done just removed it since it came from an unreliable source – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob Odenkirk also received praise for his performance as Jimmy McGill/Gene Takavic – Perhaps simpler just to say "performance as Gene Takavic", as he's acting in that role for the whole episode and that Gene is a guise for Jimmy has already been mentioned.
 Done – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is on hold for seven days, but I'm happy to give more leeway if progress is being made. Looking forward to bringing this up to GA status! — Bilorv (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice FishandChipper is not too active. Flowerkiller1692, The Optimistic One and A person in Georgia: I know you've worked on some of these in the past—could you help out on this one? I'll leave it for 48 hours to see if someone expresses interest. — Bilorv (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can make edits to the other sections, but it's gonna take a bit to go through reviews and create new copy specific to the episode, especially with the details not as fresh in my mind currently. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flowerkiller1692: thanks for the reply. If you could do what you can, that'd be fantastic. I'll check back in a week and if progress is actively being made then I can give further leeway. Whether it's within this particular GA review or outside it, I'm sure we can get this article to GA-quality. — Bilorv (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Been out sick for the last week so I haven't had a chance to make edits. Hope to have time to do it this upcoming week. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flowerkiller1692: thanks for your work on this! I believe just the Reception section issues are outstanding. Are you able to take a look at this? — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv Honestly I am not sure if I'll be able to get to it any time soon. Will ping you if I ever do. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, Flowerkiller1692, I think you have been able to make some big improvements to the article.
As the issue with the Reception section is something of substance, I'm not comfortable passing the article at this time and it's been a few weeks now so it's a fail for GA. I'll upgrade the assessment to B-class, though. I'm happy to look at a GA2 review if anybody does manage to have another go at the Reception section. — Bilorv (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nippy (Better Call Saul)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Hello! I hope you're having a good day! Thanks a lot for taking on this article. I hope you have a great read and I look forward to your advice. :) Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Immediate failure

[edit]

1. It easily reaches meets all of the criteria.
2. [3] Earwig Doesnt flag anything
3. No maintenance tags.
4. Page is currently stable, no persistent vandalism.
5. This is the second review the first review brought up problems with reception. The issues have been adressed but I notice that the tomatometer is there despite the warning of a small sample by WP:ROTTEN which was mention in GA 1.

✓ Pass

Good Article

[edit]

Well-written

[edit]
She had previously appeared on The Larry Sanders Show with Odenkirk, but the two did not share any scenes in that series.
Relevence? Seems quite trivial, is it really worth mentioning?
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No other problems

✓ Pass

Verifiable

[edit]
So immediatly I see the article is citing the episode itself which is not great
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

I have randomly selected sources 12, 18 and 23 for a spot check. (based on this revision [4])
Spotchecks
[edit]
REF 12
[edit]


Claim: 

Series creator Vince Gilligan later stated that Burnett's arrival on the set raised the morale of the cast and crew, who had all grown exhausted from the season's extended production


Source: 

[5]


Proven by source: To quote the article, "Then suddenly one day Carol Burnett shows up for episode 10, and it just made everybody happy."

REF 18
[edit]


Claim: 

Scott Tobias of Vulture called it a "brilliant and wholly unexpected stand-alone episode" and gave it a 5 out of 5 star rating, enjoying the "homage" to All That Jazz (1979) and praising Burnett and Healy's performances.


Source: 

[6]


Proven by source: The rating is present as is the comparison

REF 23
[edit]


Claim: 

In an A rating, The A.V. Club's Kimbery Potts enjoyed MacLaren's direction of the heist, saying she "creates a cheeky caper vibe complete with split screens and Lalo Schifrin’s “Jim On The Move” music from Mission: Impossible." She felt the pacing was deliberately abrupt, in order to allow viewers to digest the violence prior and felt that Jeff had irrevocably "sparked the unleashing of the Saul Goodman-ness".


Source: 

[7]


Proven by source:All of those quotes appear in the article as well as the rating.

✓ Pass

Broad in coverage

[edit]
The plot section is 346 words, 54 under the 400 word limit.
The article stays on topic for the majority of it.

✓ Pass

Neutral

[edit]

Nothing is super postive or overly critical. Good blend of negative and positive reviews. ✓ Pass

Stable

[edit]
No major edit wars or persistant vandalism recently.

✓ Pass

Illustrated

[edit]
Of the images on the page 3/4 of them are free use the rational is good.
The side by side images of the different people who play Jeff.
The Image of Bob Odenkirk makes sense with the caption, I added a source for the claim

✓ Pass

OVERALL

[edit]

I'm noticing a overall lack of issues which I think can be attributed to the previous GA where alot of problems cropped up.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Dcdiehardfan (talk). Self-nominated at 04:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nippy (Better Call Saul); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Not a review, and I review oldest first so I probably wouldn't get to this much before late February (but would not object to any other editor reviewing this in the meantime); WP:NYPOST is not a reliable source, so if you wanted that hook, you would need to find a better source.--Launchballer 08:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Launchballer. I also was thinking that in the back of my mind about the NY Post thing, and had to use it as it was the only primary source of the actor being interviewed saying so, unfortunately. I'll address the issue, and have opted to replace the primary hook with a new one, as shown above. Thank you for notifying me. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usual practice is to strike and propose new hooks as opposed to replacing them (since otherwise my comment doesn't make sense). The problem you have is that the NY Post is sufficiently unreliable that we don't trust them to not make it up, so we can't be sure that that interview did in fact happen. Thank you for the extra hook - full review needed.--Launchballer 11:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the error. I understand the NY Post error, so hopefully that should be fixed. With that being said, I plan on making ALT3 the prime hook. I look forward to the review, thank you. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I reviewed the page for GA but didnt bring up the source becasue given its an interview I thought that it was okay, should it be removed regaurdless? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would do so.--Launchballer 20:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant:, thank you for removing the content. @Launchballer: Sorry for the belated response, but I believe all the requirements should be addressed. At this current point, the actual DYK review awaits us, right? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a firm policy of doing my QPQs oldest first, as that's fair. I may revisit this if WT:DYK#Backlogs carries out its threat to time out nominations, but for now, please be patient. (Anyone else who wants a QPQ is free to review this in the interim.)--Launchballer 06:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I completely comprehend. I just wanted to confirm that was all and ensure there was no other outstanding issues, thank you in advance for (hopefully) committing to reviewing this DYK. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just from personal experience, I still think ALT0 is your best hook of the bunch above. Is there no way to find another reliable source for the claim? Note, as a fan of the show, a hook about the recasting of Harvey and Healy would be super interesting. It threw me and everyone who watched it for a loop when it aired. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Hey there! Thanks for responding. I also agree that ALT0 is my best hook, but unfortunately, the only direct claim is the NY Post interview. I also know that any secondary sources that report on the Cinnabon thing traces back to the NY Post thing, so that would be WP:FRUIT regardless. Perhaps the recast hook could work, it's something I considered early on, but I'm not sure how I would write it to be engaging to be quite honest. It's still not too late for me to go back and potentially edit my hook though is it? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan: It probably doesn't matter all that much how you do it, but the recommended best practice is to simply add new hooks when making changes. I tend not to do that, but I think you're supposed to do it that way. Also, it's fascinating how much opinions change over time. I always found the BB/BCS fan community super toxic, and when "Nippy" originally came out, I seem to recall fans hating it on Reddit. Glad to see those vocal and highly negative voices have subsided over time. I tend not to participate in fan communities for this reason. If you create a new hook, try to move the hook link to the episode to the front of the hook. Any link that appears before it will steal views from the article. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I've went ahead and followed your advice and tried to do it to the best of my abilities. Feel free to correct me if I performed any steps incorrectly and I'm thankful for the recommendations. I'm not sure how to cite a podcast and specifically the timestamps specifically, and hope I did it right. And yes, I do agree that it's fascinating opinions can change over time, but you seldom see it happen for the positive. I didn't really notice a big backlash for Healy and rarely ever check Reddit bc well...anyways, I digress too much haha. And yes, I did heed your point on moving the hook link to the front, thank you. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan: Great job! I recommend figuring out a way to move the link to the front of the hook, so that the episode is the first blue link. Otherwise, you could do it the opposite, moving it to the end, but eliminating all other links so that the viewers are forced to visit this article to find out more. Basically, although it sounds counterintuitive, you want to get in the habit of limiting the links, not increasing them (for the aforementioned reason, links preceding will steal views, etc.) Try playing around with different variations of ALT4 until you find one that really works. Sometimes you will find that the best inspiration for a hook comes not from thinking about it, but from putting it aside and thinking about other things. I find that I do my best work either during or after a brisk walk or jog, as it increases blood flow to my brain, but I assume that's TMI. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcdiehardfan: To better prepare for this DYK, I just watched the episode again. I will complete a full review in just a little bit. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from your hooks, the only complaint I have about the article is this sentence in the lead: "some felt the episode had little purpose in the show's narrative". I'm not sure that should really be there since 1) that criticism seems fairly unbalanced and undue for various reasons, and 2) there are more notable, more balanced criticisms you could use instead, and 3) the idea that the episode "had little purpose" seems frankly unbelievable, since the episode serves the deliberate purpose of a) explaining how Jimmy deals with and eliminates the threat of Jeff blowing his cover by implementing the MAD strategy; and b) this specific episode introduces us to the circumstances leading directly to Jimmy's eventual incarceration. Just wanted to throw that out there since it struck me as odd and out of place, and brought back memories of the original Reddit discussion which was completely out of left field. One wonders if that initial criticism was made out of sequence of the subsequent episodes which shows how it fits into the overall narrative arc. If so, that would explain the problem (in other words, the criticism was written prior to the episodes showing the denouement), and perhaps there is a way to rephrase that to show that reviewers were confused until later episodes tied it all together, I don't know, but if there's a way to do it, it would likely explain the overall problem. When the episode originally came out, people were freaking out on Reddit, and I'm not going to lie, I was also a bit confused as to how it fit into the narrative, but this was cleared up in subsequent episodes giving us that information. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is yes, the criticism that "some felt the episode had little purpose in the show's narrative" is half-true, but there's another half to it, which is that this confusion was quickly cleared up as the arc progressed. Furthermore, David Segal's negative review demonstrates his confusion as it was written before the next episode, and it is sure to go down as one of the worst blunders in entertainment history, perhaps similar to Siskel and Ebert panning Blade Runner. I am deeply curious if Segal has already recanted his review (someone should look into that), since there is now a general consensus that "Nippy" is a cinematic and artistic masterpiece, and frankly, I don't think the lead does enough to fix this kind of unbalance or to explain why people found it hard to understand at the time, but quickly changed their tune as the arc progressed towards its resolution. My opinion is that good art is something that takes time to digest, it's not something you can quickly consume like fast food. I think some critics and audiences are so conditioned to consuming "fast food" entertainment, that when presented with a haute cuisine-like form of media, they don't know what to make of it. This argument is not my own, it was recently presented to me by another person who was trying to explain why some people dislike Oppenheimer and other Nolan films and think Nolan is a terrible filmmaker. There's this idea that if you can't consume a piece of entertainment fully in one sitting, it's "confusing" or out of place, or doesn't work. This was my third time viewing "Nippy", and it just gets better every time I see it. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just saw Erik Kain's negative review on Forbes.[8] While I don't agree with him, he is honest enough to add a lengthy update to his review explaining how he received pushback on his review and discussing how controversial the episode was for fans and divided the community. There's also some interesting discussion by fans in the comment section that further expands on this. Looking into this deeper, it turns out that the cast and crew have discussed this here and there. My reading of this from the POV of the writers and directors, is that they made a conscious choice to go in a different direction with this episode, and while this worked for them, it alienated a lot of people in the audience because they had expectations about where the show was supposed to go. So my reading of the controversy isn't that this is a bad episode, but that it violated the expectations of the audience in a way that left them temporarily befuddled and confused. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcdiehardfan: I found additional sources independent of the NYP to support your preference for ALT0. I will list them shortly. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is the official Better Call Saul Insider Podcast podcast. McCaleb, Chris; Dixon, Kelley (26 July 2022). "610 Better Call Saul Insider". Better Call Saul Insider Podcast (Podcast). Sony Pictures Television. Event occurs at 48:29. Retrieved 19 February 2024. Michelle MacLaren: (48:29) "Jim had to eat so many Cinnabons. I mean, it was insane and we had all these [tricks] and everything. (48:53) So that, I mean, we literally at one point, he would go up to his mouth and then he would pass it off to somebody who would grab it behind his head with a fork or he'd spit it out, but he did have to eat some."
Second source: Michelle MacLaren: "That last bite is placed there for tension, because as soon as that bite is in his mouth, you’re done, if you’re not done. We build it up through repetition – it should be incredibly nerve racking at that point. It’s fun to do things like that, because you can go closer and closer, you’re making a big deal, but about somebody eating a Cinnabon. I will say hats off to Jim O’Heir, because he had to eat a lot. We had a lot of spit takes and stuff, but still, I mean, wow, that was that was very challenging to to do. He is amazing."[9]
Third source: "And then of course the Cinnabons. First of all, I was so excited about Jim O'Heir [who played Frank]. He's the number one person to play that part. I called Jim when we were in prep and I said, "So, Jim, do you like Cinnabons? You're going to have to eat a lot of Cinnabons and I just wanted to prepare you for that." He laughed and he said, "You got the absolute right person to play this part." He loves Cinnabons! But, I don't know if you can even eat a whole one because they're just so heavy. He was such a trooper with that.We had all these different tricks, but he did have to eat a few Cinnabons."[10]

Sorry, that's all I could find. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Apologies for not looking earlier, but either way, thank you for passing the DYK thus far and also for the plethora of information you have provided. I will definitely be sure to take a look at all the sources you have provided and again cannot thank you enough for doing the research. I've went ahead and just now integrated the sources and information into the article, regarding the lede "little purpose" thing, I'm frankly not sure how to resolve that, I'll probably resolve that later since I'm more prioritized on the DYK, so if you have any edits, feel free to be bold and go ahead and implement the changes. I also tried to improve the plot to hopefully make it more engaging by using more active tenses and establishing some more flow, and thanks for CEing the Prod. Apologies for all the hook alterations, but my original plan was actually to have the Cinnabon thing as the prime hook, with Burnett being my second pick, and having the other stuff as just pure back-up. I took your advice and tried to be as minimalist as possible and put the main target link at the front for ALT5. I'll probably now fully commit to that and in the case that it won't suffice, I'll then focus on revising the others. My hook order is now something like this: ALT5, ALT2, ALT4. Either way, again, I genuinely appreciate the patience and thanks a lot for the advice. And if there's any other prose things you feel needs improvement in the article, of course, feel free to alert me. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan: For all the interworking parts to function effectively in ALT5, consider making a few changes. You can get the same results in different ways. For example, you can arrange it so there is only one link which has the same effect as moving the link to the front. This is just an example for discussion, please do not actually use it: "that Michelle MacLaren directed Jim O'Heir to eat numerous Cinnabon rolls for a scene in Better Call Saul?" By using only one link, it gives you a bit more freedom to write the hook. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Gotcha, I went ahead and edited the prose of ALT5. Are you sure I can do that, I was under the impression you should Wikilink all the significant terms for the hook, no? I've went ahead and tried to emulate the structure, feel free to give me further advice. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan: That's a great question! We have considerable latitude when it comes to writing just about anything here, so I wouldn't worry too much about rules. What's cool, is that if something does violate a rule of some kind, someone will come along to correct it, so don't worry; that's one of the best things about Wikipedia, IMO. In any case, you got me interested, so I took a look at WP:DYKG and didn't see anything addressing that subject except for a brief discussion about related material within the WP:DYK200 subsection. Perhaps you were thinking of WP:DYKMOS, which says "Every eligible article in the hook should be linked and wrapped in bold markup"? That only refers to the link to the Nippy episode. I'll address the hook in a bit. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I see, and I do agree that the collaborative and constructive nature of Wikipedia is definitely one of its best elements. Considering that, I believe I will now present ALT5, as it is currency constructed, as my final DYK hook, and hopefully that works. Let me know what needs to be done and again, thank you for all the help you've given me thus far in the DYK. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like ALT5, but before passing it I will need to check the article and requirements. One thing to consider, will non-fans find it interesting? Will other reviewers find things objectionable about it? These are the questions I try to ask. This is also why I will approve more than one hook in the event that others dislike ALT5. You and I like the hook because we are fans, but we need to consider how it looks to people who aren’t. I think it should work, and I realize that you are working with limited material. So I will likely approve it and another hook in the event that others voice reasonable objections, which will allow you to have another hook ready to go just in case. I will return in a bit to do the final review. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to close this out. Hook and source check out in the article, but Earwig returns four identical phrases from the Den of Geek site.[11] I think I can salvage this by paraphrasing, but I would encourage you to review it when I'm done. We can't have identical phrases from DoG without quotes, so this needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Earwig issues here.[12] Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan: I hate to draw this out any longer, but Tatlock confirms in the official commentary that the buns Bob Odenkirk made for Jim were specially prepared and are not the usual Cinnabon size, but larger and more gooey.[13] As you are likely already aware, Cinnabon corporate sent someone out previously to train Odenkirk how to make them, and for this episode, Odenkirk made the decision to make them larger than normal with extra frosting. Of course, I don't have any info that says Odenkirk actually made them for this episode, as he could have had someone else make them, but we do know it was his idea (according to Tatlock) to make them larger and gooier than normal. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan: Recommend not repeating words twice in ALT5. You say "scene" several times. Just change the second instance from "Michelle MacLaren intended for the scene to establish tension through repetition" to "Michelle MacLaren intended to establish tension through repetition" as it is already established that we are referring to the scene ("that actor Jim O'Heir consumed numerous Cinnabon rolls for a scene in Better Call Saul"). Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Again, no worries regarding protracting the overall DYK, I appreciate the meticulousness of the review. I will plan on implementing the Cinnabon Content later, as I have some other more Wiki Projects planned. I'll also go ahead and do another Copyvio scan to try and reduce any other quoted content, and thank you for going ahead and helping ease some of that work for me. With that being said, I've went ahead and edited the DYK hook, and in accordance with the comments, I will be now proceeding w/ ALT5 as it is currently (apologies for the new edit on the final edit), but I hopefully believe that now, everything should be addressed. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: Everything checks out. Prefer ALT5, otherwise ALT3. To the approver and prep builder, see my comments up above about removing the word "scene" from the second part of the hook. I realize that this just passed GA, but the prose is pretty rough. I made a few brief copyedits to the production section, but I would recommend taking another look at the plot section. The rule of thumb is that the prose should never stop the reader in their tracks. Think of the reader as a paddler in a canoe. The prose should push the reader along like the current of a lazy river. It should be a smooth, calm ride without any rocks or rapids. I could barely make it through the plot section in its current form. Aside from that minor issue, I think you could rewrite a new Cinnabon hook based on your chosen ALT0 (now crossed out) using the sources I added up above, but that's just a suggestion; it may not be enough to go on and could just be discarded, it's really up to you. As for ALT1, ALT2, and ALT4, I think you're on the right track, and a hook based on Carol Burnett, the region where it was shot, or the recasting of Jeff would conceivably work and generate interest, but the way you've got it written right now doesn't really work for me. I suppose I could go ahead and pass ALT3, but I truly wonder if other people outside of BCS fandom will find it interesting. I will await new hooks like a Hobbit awaiting second breakfast, but if none are forthcoming, I will pass ALT3. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nippy_(Better_Call_Saul)&oldid=1224530953"