Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:56, 20 October 2012

	Breaking Bad was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 3, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed June 20, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Television Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Number of Episodes for Season 3

There is no citation/source for number of Season 3 episodes, that should be taken out asap and be replaced with "unknown" or something like that. I am an outsider to this article, so anyone who works on this article frequently should be the one to change it. Thirty episodes for any scripted television show is much, so I don't think anyone would believe that... I know I don't.Vinnymac001 (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome

The guy that put "This is going to be the best series I have ever seen. The pilot was AWSOME!" is so right, but some one should probably take that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.114.217 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

synopsis

That synopsis is for the first episode. It ought to be cut down immensely if not entirely removed.66.41.66.213 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it can definitely be taken as there is a decent synopsis on the Pilot Episode's page, and it has no relevance otherwise. --George The Man (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

title logo and chemical symbol

The show logo use the chemical symbols Br for Bromine and Ba for Barium to spell first two letters of the words Breaking Bad that make up the show title. Will add this later if I have time to phrase it so that some jackass won't immediately call it trivia and delete it but if someone can think of a suitable way to add the information please go ahead. -- Horkana (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the logo which shows the symbols. I think a "Production notes" section would be best for this information. (See: WP:Television - Prod. Notes) It could mention the title and also note that the cast and crew in the opening credits have combinations of letters that are also chemical symbols hilighted in their names. However, I wouldn't take it so far as to list the cast, showing symbols in their names. That would be too trivial. But, I do think that the use of chemical symbols should be mentioned due to the show's element (no pun intended) of chemistry. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The section on the inclusion of chemical symbols for cast and crew states "when the name of the director of photography, MiChael Slovis, is credited, the Ch which appears is not an atomic symbol for any known element." Not all chemical symbols have two letters; many use only one. While there is (at present) no element with the chemical symbol "Ch", "C" by itself is the symbol for carbon. Therefore, the statement that this is an exception to the capitalization=symbol rule is inaccurate. I have not changed the page because, having had nothing to do with its creation or maintenance, I don't feel I have the right to do so, but I wanted to point out this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.125.150 (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a section should be dedicated for the highlight of the atomic symbols in the title and in the credits. NatureBoyMD added the logo which shows the atomic symbols and their respective numbers, so most people can figure it out themselves. It might be a good idea to move it to Production. Also, I feel that "it indicates that each molecule contains 10 carbon atoms, 15 hydrogen atoms and one nitrogen atom" should be removed all together, since those who don't know how molecular formulas work can follow the url provided. --Mordarto (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cutesy element references

"One exception appears; when the name of the director of photography, MiChael Slovis, is credited, the Ch which appears is not an atomic symbol for any known element." Forgive me for caring, but isn't C an element? It even says so in the next sentence. Hence not an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.206.174 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

C stands for carbon and H for hydrogen, however Ch doesn't stand for anything. I don't see why the produces didn't just use the S in his name for sulfur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.31.227 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In the show's credits, elemental symbols appear in a different color. So the above observation is accurate that "Ch" is an exception (ie, highlighted in the credits but not an actual symbol). Looks like the sentence has been since been removed -- because it's too trivial or because some editors (mistakenly) assumed that "C" is the intended symbol? Perhaps someone can find a secondary source which notes the show's titling discrepancy :> PrBeacon (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Series 2

I heard that this has been picked up for a second series (unfortunately, I can't remember my source). Can anyone confirm/deny this? Brooza (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

cranston alluded to it in an interview online march 9th which can be found here: http://blogs.amctv.com/breaking-bad/2008/03/live-chat-with.php

"Do you think Vince will let you stretch your legs and direct a few episodes next season? Bryan: It's a possibility." --69.81.91.18 (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone have any citations or source for the title being Southern American slang or for its definition at all? I am curious as to where this came from. (Puerca (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

Apparently it came from Vince Gilligan's hometown in Virgina:

Honestly, when I named our show “Breaking Bad” I thought everyone was aware of this bit of slang, and it turns out nobody is except for the people in my hometown. But to break bad, when I was growing up, was to raise hell. “Jim was down at the bar the other weekend, and he got really drunk and he really broke bad. He totaled his car.” The show might as well have been named “Raising Hell,” but it would have sounded like a Clive Barker thing. A detective who sends people to hell or something.

- PrBeacon (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

iTunes special

It might be worth mentioning and it might equally might be trivia that the first episode of Breaking Bad was distributed as a free sampler on Apple's iTunes Music Store in the United Kingdom in October 2008. There is further research required into the choice of Breaking Bad for this to make it more than a single fact. 81.154.93.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Changed Synopsys

i changed it a little as with what was originally there, it seems to be wrong. His hasn't made the meth lab to simply support his family, he could have done with his teaching job. He starts the meth lab simply to make as much money for his family as he can before he dies. I mean, even after making 35k in a week, he says it's not enough, that doesn't sound like a person whos only trying to "support his family"

I'm not sure if my new words are perfect, but i couldn't think of what else to write. Anyone else got any thoughts?

ORIGINAL setting up a meth lab in order to "support his family"

NEW setting up a meth lab in order to "accumilate money, unknowingly to them, for his family before his death" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.17.117 (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it again, the new one sums it up very well i would say. "desire to secure his family's future financial security" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.17.117 (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed a few details at the end of Season Two - most significantly putting in the plane crash caused by Jane's father, and clarifying the order of events which cause Walter to leave Jane to die. I think it's quite significant that she threatens him, he doesn't just let her die on a whim. I just watched the whole season last night, and I checked that the points I added are correct. I also linked John de Lance's name to the Jane's father character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domitella (talk • contribs) 11:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the synopsis settings brief per WP:Writing About Fiction. If you wish to add more information about Jesse's death, please update the Season 2 Synopsis article accordingly. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Jane's death? I kept it as brief as possible while explaining what actually happened - right now the article is back to being incorrect about what happens in Season 2. Walter does not leave Jane to die when he's taking the money, that happens later. Also the fact that the plane crash is not mentioned in the Season 2 summary makes it weird when it suddenly is in that for Season 3. What was the specific problem with the changes I made? I can't see anything in those guidelines which contradicts any of the changes I put in to make it more accurate. I think it's also VERY relevant that Walter was threatened by Jane before leaving her to die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domitella (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, tried again, used as few words as humanly possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domitella (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Season 2 Episodes 2 and 3 Leaked

Is it worth mentioning that episodes 2 and 3 of season 2 have been leaked to bittorrent one and two weeks before they air?

This is the only time I've seen that happen to such a major show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.221 (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's trivial.-NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It happened with Series 6 of 24 Brooza (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

refused help from rich friend

The fact that walt refused $$ help form a rich friend is a large hole in the plot? In any case, it should be mentioned. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He refused financial help from a former friend/partner who ended up marrying the woman that Walt loved. Even if editors routinely mentioned plot holes (which they don't), where's the plot hole in that? 58.174.130.182 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

filled in future: "Call Saul"... blends in with "If you want to make more money AND keep it...better Call Saul", later when Walt $ Saul talk many ideas on How the money was made comes up, Fall off a truck, lottery, rich uncle dies, etc... Walt wants to EARN the money, showing self worth. not gifted money.

Personal note... I did not know Gretchen was in s1e3 with Walt going over the makeup of human body, I thought that was Skyler until a few days ago. With that new knowledge I would guess Walt would make a new family like Saul suggested, could be old fling with Gretchen... (Skyler goes with Boss). 42Adult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.130.17 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Meth Production

I'm wondering if we can verify whether the processes used to produce meth on the show are real, or if the steps were changed as to not serve as an instruction for illegal activity. The show appears to go to great lengths to display a process, whether real or not. Would this be considered trivial information? Xachexmachina (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't really learn how to make meth by watching the show. You don't have the quantity, the processes or the details. They just had stuff go bang. As for accuracy, they got a DEA agent to show them what a real meth lab looks like. See video. F (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Production has 2 sides: A. Getting the supplies: How hard to locate/cost B. Creation/Risk/Time to make quality product: Work location(RV/Storage/Garage/Basement), Risk of Fire/Smoke/Chemical Reactions/Time to make product(3-4 days for big batch)...Make Hay while the sun shines :)

They have done a good job in not over killing the process, making the show realistic for the general public. 42Adult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.130.17 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize?

In a flashback in the pilot we see a plaque that suggests Walter was somehow involved in Nobel Prize winning science. Anyone know more about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.143.121 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the PEACE Prize, one of them other Nobel Prizes, like for all that scientifical stuff he does. 05:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.206.18 (talk)

Nobel Prize in Physics for helping contribute to Neutron Radiography if I remember correctly. 151.200.36.84 (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gonzo's Death error

The info for the Gonzo character states that his arm was severed and he bled to death. However, in the actual episode, his arm is cut off by a stack of cars while he is hiding a body, that much is true. But his cause of death is his face being smashed in by one of the axles on the cars, after his arm is cut off.

(ZeplinFan (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)ZeplinFan)

Season 1 Synopsis Error

The following is incorrect: "During one of their talks Walt gives Krazy 8 a sandwich and drinks beer with him discussing life, discovering that Walt bought his sons crib from Krazy 8's father, Walt stands up to leave but begins to cough and passes out. Awakening later, Walter picks up the broken plate and goes to get the key to set Krazy 8 free."

This description confuses the chronology. Walt made a sandwich for Krazy 8 and coughed, falling down the stairs and breaking the plate. He collects it upon waking up 15 minutes later, and throws the shards out, and makes a new sandwich. He brings the sandwich and beer down to talk to Krazy 8, and, finding out his back story decides to let him go. When he goes upstairs to retrieve the key, it occurs to him to check the plate and discovers the problem. This is from the third episode of season 1, starting about 23 minutes in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.138.33 (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unambiguous?

The synopsis states "season two's cold open flashforward scenes are unambiguous about the imminent fate of White and Pinkman."

I find them ambiguous. We see items that belong to the pair, and a body in a body bag ... but nothing beyond that is revealed. We dodn't know what lead to those events, nor do we even know who's body it is. I find the flashfowards quite ambiguous, and I believe that is the intent. --64.180.25.185 (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is merely speculation until we know who the bodies are, or if it's even something that really happens. I removed it from the article. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot Synopses too long

Self explanatory, their too long! There is way too much detail, especially season 3, which reads like a novel! I can take a crack at shortening season 1 but I won't touch the other two (I haven't watched them and I don't want to spoil them for me). Thoughts? Volunteers? (Deftonesderrick 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree, while the plot synopsis is a useful section, it does not have to be this long, especially since all the episodes have their own summaries on the episodes list page. I would suggest breaking the section into two parts, "Setting" and "Plot" or perhaps using the same format that The Sopranos article used. I can volunteer to trim down the the second season summary, but I'm not exactly sure when I'm going to have enough spare time to do it. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

They were too long, I've moved them to their respective season articles, where the guidelines are a little looser. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

deeper critical analysis

It would be nice if the article's creator could find some deeper critical analysis. For example... The Sony Home Video brochure describes the series as a "dramedy", and the first two episodes are played as very black humor. It's also obvious that Vince Gilligan has been watching a lot of Hitchcock -- the influences and even direct references are obvious. Isn't there some "qualified" reviewer out there who has commented on this?

Possible chemical error... Hydrofluoric acid -- one of the few acids that attacks glass -- is Really Nasty Stuff. But I doubt even two gallons of it would be enough to eat through a bathtub, not to mention the floor below. Especially after they'd done their work on a human body. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cancer not "terminal"

I have changed the wording regarding the cancer. It was never diagnosed as "terminal" (see terminal illness), because the life expectancy given Walt was a "couple of years" at the most. Furthermore, the word "terminal" is not used in the scene at the doctor's at all.--Wahlin (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but...

..."the two strike up an idea to steal a similar chemical which would make for a new formula."

This actually happens in the last episode of season 1, not during season 2. The chemical they steal is what gives their meth a blue tint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CP87 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Original channel only

I had an edit undone because it should be "original channel only"? Is that wiki policy or the done thing? I thought it would be nice for those in the UK to know it was actually available over here (I didn't know until I made the change). If so, fair enough, but just thought I would ask for clarification! Heywoodg 18:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to mention it elsewhere. I'm not up on every guideline (all 8 zillion of them ;p ), but as I understand it, the lead is current-only. You might add a "Broadcasters" section. TREKphiler 22:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The envelope, please

Not to take away from Bryan Cranston, but do actors' awards really belong to the show? For the show, yes, but that's their work, no? TREKphiler 22:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, or if you're making a suggestion for the article, but I'll put my input in anyway. Of course actors' awards belong to the show, and it also belongs to the actor. They're portraying a character on the show, as well as performing the dialogue that's written for them, they're not winning an award for being themselves with no one else's input. You could say that about any award, whether it be writing, directing, editing, music, production design, cinematography—they're all for the show and for the individuals. I'm still confused by your meaning/phrasing, as you say "Not to take away from Bryan Cranston" like you're taking credit from him, yet you say that the award is their work. I'd like to understand what exactly you're getting at. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I see I should've been clearer. :( Again. :( The award to Cranston is listed as a show award here, & it struck me odd. I've always taken awards to performers as being their own, not the show's, since it's for their performance. You do make a good point, tho, so I wouldn't suggest removing it. Thx for the clear answer, even to a muddy question. :) TREKphiler 23:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Black comedy?

Not a black comedy. i'm taking that out. it's either drama or black comedy idiots. i'm removing it. wanna put it back in? challenge me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDarmodyRules (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're either a troll or you're a massive chump. Black comedy shows are often also considered dramas, as they have been for hundreds of years. Check the AMC website and you'll see that Breaking Bad is listed as both. You can also hunt for articles in which both Bryan Cranston and Vince Gilligan refer to the show as such. The genre is being changed back. Next time, get a grip on what black comedy is before referring to those who get it right as 'idiots'. comment added by OldSchoolRyanAtwood —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

I'm not one entirely clear on what black comedy is, or isn't (seeing "The Great Waldo Pepper" is listed as a black comedy, & I've never found any part of it remotely humorous), but in this case, I agree with OldSchool. The relationship between Walter & Jesse has marks of Archie & Edith, & if you've never laughed at how crazy the show is, you just don't get it. TREKphiler 19:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Television shows these days generally cover all genres, the only difference is setting like Science fiction, historical, present company excluded (foreign), or domestic; it's just a matter if they do it goodly or badly. Come on Season 4!98.165.15.98 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is 'black comedy' edited out so frequently? Are there really that many people out there who don't understand the genre? Yes, there are plenty of dark dramas out there that contain fantastic humour in large doses - The Sopranos, Mad Men, The Wire, House - but Breaking Bad goes out of its way to really bring out the humour in even the most macabre of situations. Everything from Walt's cancer diagnosis to the decapitation of a police snitch is played for laughs. Even in the recent episodes where things have gotten really grim, things are always presented in a comedic style. That's part of what makes the show so disturbing. Did the whole 'eating out at Denny's in Kenny Rogers shirts after a horrific murder' thing really go over your heads? Come on guys. —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.134 (talk)

People probably edit it out because it is not a black comedy. In the show comedy is not derived from immoral or dark action. When a kid gets shot and killed, its not played as comedy at all. In comparison to say....dr strangelve where mass genoicide and dropping of a-bombs is played as comedic.24.207.129.95 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Attribution

I've recently started two new Breaking Bad related articles that feature some content from this page at:

1. Crew of Breaking Bad and
2. List of awards and nominations received by Breaking Bad

--Opark 77 (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

criticism

Shouldn't there be a section about their anti-liberty and anti-Ron Paul bias and how they intentionally try to make Ron Paul look bad?--24.171.6.27 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Falcon8765 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No. unless you have a reliable source (WP:RS) that specifically discusses the issue :) --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No such thing will be found, the "controversy" only exists on message boards where Paul supporters either conclude that they are being maligned as meth-freaks, or that the appearance of a Paul campaign sticker in a meth-cook's notebook is a reference to Paul's libertarian stance for decriminalizing drugs. Since the main character is a sympathetic meth-cook, this is not necessarily a negative reference. Seconds prior to the Ron Paul sticker appearance, there's a picture of Willie Nelson in the same notebook. Obviously, the writers are just playing with your head... Bustter (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The show's "critical acclaim" citations, all gushingly adulatory, need to be balanced with something more measured and skeptical. Everything has a downside, and nothing is entirely wonderful, yet mainstream America appears to have lost its critical bearings over this commercial TV production. That being said, I concede that in the entire web I could find only one small "watchdog" article assailing the show's underlying motives.Orthotox (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but wtf is it about?

Misplaced Pages has a massive problem when it comes to tv shows. I'm sure all this information is relevant, it might even be interesting to someone, but where is the goddamn explanation of what the show is _about_? "breaking bad is a tv show about X that does Y", thats the minimum any tv show article needs, and yet in several paragraphs this manages to go completely unanswered.

GAH

60.234.140.207 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph on the page answers that, so I dont know what you're talking about Pat (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

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

I will review this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• No toolbox issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

WP:LEAD

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Merge or expand one-line paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Production

• Merge or expand the one-line paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cast and characters

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

Overview

• 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)

Critical reception

• Merge (or expand) the first two paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• Merge or expand one-line paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

Awards and nominations

• Add most notable nomination (the Drama Series streak).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)

Ratings

• Merge or expand one-line paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• • 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)

Who decided to edit the section for "Season Five" with his or her own ideas about "jesse's girlfriends" making meth, then asking, "It would make for a good story Right?" That was stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.113.62 (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Saul, Gus and Mike became regulars in season 3 or 4?

Currently this page and the season 3 page says Odenkirk, Esposito and Banks all became regulars in season 3, however I'm almost certain this didn't happen until season 4 and they were still credited as guest stars during season 3. I don't actually have the DVDs on hand to check myself though, so I'm a little hesitant to edit the articles. But the IMDb episode cast lists seem to support me as they aren't credited in any of the episodes they don't appear in, whereas series regulars are always credited whether they actually appear or not. See the "Fly" episode page for example. I know IMDb isn't considered a reliable source though, so does anyone else know for sure? --DocNox (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:47 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Giancarlo Esposito is credited as a main cast member in the first episode of season 3, while Odenkirk and Banks are main cast in the second episode onward. In the case of "Fly", only the existing season 1 and 2 main cast is credited (Bryan Cranston to RJ Mitte). So Espo, Odenkirk and Banks are credited as main cast only when they appear. --URunICon (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The infobox image

Don't use a non-free image when there's a free image available. --URunICon (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless the screenshot is of the opening credits. We'd prefer to use to use this instead of promo art. RAP (talk) 18:23 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Others don't agree with you. The image you have posted again has been deleted twice. () This image is being used in over 20 other wikis and is free. Thus it should be used here as well. --URunICon (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that it has to be used here. If you have viewed any other TV show articles, you would see that they use the screenshot of the main title in the opening credits. Not promo art. Is this a legit concern or is it because you don't like the picture? RAP (talk) 20:42 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Policy 2 section 1. No free equivalent. It's just that wikipedia uses a non-free image only when there is no free one available. In this case there is, so we should automatically use that one. I love the Breaking Bad opening and I think it's one of the best ones in television, but the image isn't a free one. --URunICon (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It still doesn't mean we have to use a free one. As long as we have a copyright slapped on the non-free one, it's fine. RAP (talk) 21:23 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available." --URunICon (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the free equivalent is promo art. If it were the screenshot that is desired, we wouldn't be here. RAP (talk) 21:55 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't matter as long as it serves the same purpose. --URunICon (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

But if the non-free serves a better purpose, it trumps the free. Them's the facts. RAP (talk) 23:33 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It serves the exact same purpose. Only yours is non-free. --URunICon (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer the use of RAP's image as I feel it provides a much better representation of the series. The promo art is bare and does not show how the title is used within the series. The promo art is also not the true logo used within the show, as evidenced by the more detailed chemical boxes in the opening credits image as opposed to the promo art. It also conforms to the style used within almost all other television articles (The Sopranos, 24, Lost), in which the intertitle is used to identify the series. Take a situation like 24 in which a different logo was used in promo materials and certain season sets (for example, http://res.images.picsquare.com/images/designs/1507.jpg) as opposed to the digital clock-esque intertitle logo. That said, let's all be civil here. You both make very good points and UrunICon's concerns are legitimate.Penny Lane's America (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I also prefer the screenshot image, for the reasons described by Penny Lane. While I recognize UrunICon's concerns, I don't think the "promo art" version truly does serve the same purpose. (I'm also somewhat puzzled by the actual source of that version. From the file's page, it appears that we're calling it promo art based on an assertion by someone uploading it to the German Misplaced Pages that the "author" was AMC, but the actual public-domain rationale provided is that it's just geometric shapes and text and therefore can't be copyrighted, which makes me think it was probably actually made by a Wikipedian. Am I missing something?) Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you google image "Breaking Bad", It's used in a lot of Season One posters and advertisements for the series premiere, as well as the art for the Season 1 DVD. (Though, my Season One blu ray is without the gradients.) A lot of the posters use different variations. Season 2 has the same generic element boxes but with the traditional white letters. Season 4 posters use transparent boxes. It's definitely been used to identify the series before, but it's certainly not current. Like I said, I feel more comfortable with the 'official' opening logo. Penny Lane's America (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

minisodes

Season 4 synopsis mentions that 4 minisodes were going to be produced, but never came to fruition.

Season 2 should mention that 5 minisodes were produced and released. 1- Good Cop Bad Cop, 2- Wedding Day, 3- Twaught Hammer, 4- Marie's Confession, 5- The Break-In — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.169.205 (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Breaking Bad/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 08:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Love the series so will review this over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have started reviewing this. There are a few issues which I will get to soon. First though I notice the nominator has not made any contributions to the article. While drive-by nominations are allowed, it does raise concerns over who will address potential problems raised and whether the nominator has the knowledge or skills to fix said problems.

I also made some, what I considered minor, edits to the article while reading it here. These changes were reverted with this edit. Don't quite follow the reasoning of "Unnecessary and even clumsy". Take Cranston stated that, though he enjoyed doing comedy, he decided he ... compared to Cranston stated that, though he enjoyed doing comedy, he .... The first sentence appears a lot more clumsy to me, for example without the parenthesis the first sentence reads Cranston stated that he decided he .... According to the MOS cquotes should not be used in this fashion (see Template:Cquote documentation). There is an issue with the overuse of quotes in general that I will get to later. Now I am happy for any comment or change I made to be challenged, but would also appreciate a reason given on this page. I will make no more edits to the article and detail everything else here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reply can be found here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Have re-replied there too. I feel that Hearfourmewesique's edits cause this article to fail criteria 1a of the GA criteria and I will be unable to pass this article if they stand. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was the GA1 reveiewer. I am, of course, concerned about the uninvolved nomination. Also, I want to state that, IIRC, there was some ratings content that got deleted during prior revisions. Ratings are encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I am not checking the edits closely to see if there is vandalism or content dispute, but there are a lot of reverted edits for a page that was failed previously for instability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in. Feel free to comment as much as you wish. I did look through your review and noticed that you previously failed it for instability. I feel it is stable enough at this stage. See this diff showing the changes that have occurred this month and this one showing the changes since it was nominated (nearly four months ago). If there was a serious content dispute I would expect to see tit for tat reverts or at least some mention on the talk page. The only recent dispute on the talk page is over the infobox and although it doesn't seem to have overflowed onto the article page, it looks very relevant to GA status. I will look into the ratings more closely when I get to the reception section. Are there any other concerns left over from your review? AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to comment much. I am just a bit skeptical about an uninvolved nomination. I have no other serious remaining issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few little things with the prose, but nothing too hard to fix

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am going to put the overquotation issue here. Most of the Cast section consists of long quotes describing the characters. This is too much in my opinion.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   So far seems OK

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Issues with this in the previous review, but after looking through the history and talk page it does not seem a major problem this time around.

6. 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):

   The fair use rational for the two non-free images is pretty underwhelming. I also find myself agreeing with the editor on the talk page that suggest the screenshot of the opening title is invalid as another free image is availible.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• with him in a sixth season episode of the science fiction television series The X-Files, where Gilligan worked as a writer The where Gilligan worked as a writer is a bit redundent it is mentioned in the previous section.  Done
• knowing of Cranston only from his well-known role as the over-the-top character Bit over done with knowing and well-known. Well-known is a bit WP:ORish too, I would suggest removing it. If he is well-known, we don't really have to say so.  Done
• Crew needs some references.
• The quote under cast for Walter White is too long. I would look at shortening it. Same with Skyler, Jesse, Hank and possibly even Marie. In fact most of the character assessments rely too much on long quotes.
• The "Themes" section is a bit quote heavy too, although I like the block quote. Some don't fit well, like of which The A.V. Club said that "the pink teddy bear continues to accuse"  Done

I am going to stop there for now. This is a drive-by nom so I don't want to go to much further unless someone responds who is willing to address any concerns. I would estimate that I am about halfway through the review. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a few editors are working on this so I think I can continue. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Some good work reducing the amount of quotes, but I still feel the article relies too much on them. I did a rough calculation and there are about 50 of them (one third of the total article prose consists of a quote). Considering that the lead, development history, crew, epesodes and online promotion don't have any quotes this is a high concentration. Too high in my opinion. They should be relatively easy to work into the text. AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Some good work, but ultimately I think it needs someone willing to push through. I would suggest working on reducing the reliance on quotes as a starting point. AIRcorn (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The A.V. Club

Fro some reason, their remark on the re-appearance of the pink teddy bear has been removed, twice, without an adequate explanation. Please provide one. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I took it out originally because the GA Reviewer said it was awkwardly quoted, which I can kind of see. I also put it in originally, so I can see it both ways. It might be best if we wrote something like "The AV Club pointed out that the pink teddy bear seemed to be accusing the characters" or "The AV Club remarked that the pink teddy bear seemed to have the power of accusation". Neither of those are my best sentences, but you get the idea. Penny Lane's America (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that my version works fine, and it gets the idea across – the pink teddy bear is a haunting image that keeps Walt's conscience guilty. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Black comedy (again)

I removed black comedy from the genres in the infobox and removed the black comedy category. I know that this has been discussed in the past, but, beyond people offering their own (irrelevant) interpretations, nothing substantive has been added to the article that shows prominent critics call it a black comedy. Without refs, these assertions are meaningless. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The only reference offered isn't substantive enough. I removed it. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think the ref. looked notable, either. But, having been accused of bringing my "personal politics" (whatever the hell that means) into this, I decided to leave it alone. I am glad, though, that you thought it was dodgy as well. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Greatest series of all time?

Many critics have lauded it as such, and I think it should be addressed in the lead. Thoughts? Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

yes72.201.19.165 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast list table

The table of cast members shows succinctly shows the roles, actors and seasons in which the character appears. As such I believe it adds real value to the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

All it does is repeat the information given just below it, take up space, and wreck the layout of the section. The fact that it was added by some random anon. editor who could not be bothered to offer an explanation for why it was necessary does not help. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's quite disrespectful of you to dismiss anonymous editors. Many of them do good work. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it originally because I also thought it was unnecessary. Do we really need a table to recap every bit of prose in a Misplaced Pages article? It's just redundant information that is "recapping" what's already there. You can get the actors and characters names, their duration on the series, and their main role in first sentence of each character description. Character tables are really only useful for shows with large, rotating casts. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the table is unnecessary, repititious and visually unappealing.--Chimino (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Protagonism, Antagonism, and Morality

I've corrected an error in the "Conception" section which makes the unsourced statement that Vince wanted to create a show where the protagonist becomes the antagonist. Since the statement was unsourced, I've assumed that the writer was purporting a common misconception that protagonism and antagonism are somehow linked to morality. For the record, a protagonist is the main character of a story, and the antagonist is the character opposite him / her.

In this show, Walt would be considered the protagonist, even though he has struggled to remain on morally justifiable grounds. The antagonist of the show is more ambiguous, but the antagonist would most likely be argued as being Hank, or (SPOILER) Gus during season 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.63.232 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Languages in infobox

Aside from English, there were two languages used throughout the series. The fact that one was used less merits no relevance to the decision to include/exclude it. We should either include both (Spanish and German) or leave just English. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think all three should be listed, but if not all three, then it should just be English. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. German is a problem due to the fact it was only used in two episodes. The reason Spanish is listed is because it was utilized in all 5 seasons of the series (mainly due to the location). It's either English/Spanish or nothing. That's my view. RAP (talk) 2:56 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Start-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles