Talk:Kim Wexler/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Sources

• There is potentially WP:OVERCITE for the Emmy snub at the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards sentence; one of these is a NY Post article, discredited at perennial sources, and should be removed anyway. The OVERCITE could be improved by either finding one source summarizing much of the responses in the others or by created a ref note with them all included instead.
• About a quarter of the sources are episodes of the TV show; I don't know exactly what the AV cites still do/don't support, but using harv refs these could be condensed to one ref for the show and then specify the episode in location/superscript. Just a suggestion to stop turning the sources into an episode list because...
• There is an orange tag for more sources needed in the character biography section. A lot of this can be sourced to the show as a form of WP:PLOT, though I'd recommend using some secondary/tertiary sources that discuss the character, if they exist, as these also indicate notability for the article to warrant a standalone article. An orange tag that unquestionably needs addressing can be a reason to quickfail on its own, but see #Overall.

Prose

• The prose is quite... conversational? It reads as if someone who isn't quite sure how to phrase what they want to say is rushing all the information out - acceptable as a draft, but it should be refined for Wikipedia (and certainly GA) standards. E.g. Seehorn had already gotten an idea that Kim enjoyed participating on Jimmy's cons (though, to be fair, that makes much more sense on its own than with the rest of the sentence [, a fact established in the screenplay for the fourth episode of the first season "Hero", but which Seehorn had yet to see] following it...)
  • Quite a few run-on sentences that need splitting/using clearer punctuation. E.g. The scene as written had minimal direction, but Seehorn, in preparing for the shot, saw a number of subtleties with the scene that suggested she knew Jimmy intimately, that she had boundaries, and she was used to cleaning up after Jimmy's mistakes. or With this change, the writers saw Kim no longer being as moral as planned and gave her a darker side that arose from her childhood, something that gave her a chip on her shoulder that would make her give in to more unethical approaches if it got the job done, and thus one that readily fell into work alongside Jimmy in his cons after fighting her reluctant nature to join in.
• The conception and development section kind of starts out on-topic, but quickly becomes a finely-detailed account of the actress's thoughts during certain scenes. Maybe it's the style in which it's written, but this feels out of place - creating a character happens before the show and the rest is acting choices, which every character has. It's also too detailed, even for the specific character article (some of the details may be better-placed in relevant episode articles); it could largely be condensed to say "Seehorn intuited new depths to her character when reading the script and preparing her role. As the show progressed, the writers felt Seehorn's performance was critical in developing the character further."
• The season 5 section is longer than I would expect the entire plot summary for that season at its article to be.
• As Ethics Training with Kim Wexler is a kind of spin-off of the show, there should be mention of it there, and only the character's involvement (as with the main show) should be included here.
• The reception coverage, though almost entirely being reviews of the actress's performance (rather than outside media discussing the character and its influence) - which actually belongs at her or the show's article - is also very uneven. One line to cover both season 1 and 2, season 3 goes unmentioned, season 4 gets a poorly-formatted and too-lengthy quotation, and season 5 gets a long paragraph. Further, I think the season 4 quote would really be better used as information to discuss her characterisation, meaning of the character, and her position in the story.
  • The length of the quote for season 4 is also about 40% of the original Salon article's content. While it is in quotation marks and so isn't suggesting it is original text, that is probably too much of the original article to be acceptable, in copyvio terms.
  • Regarding length of quote - if it was fine being that long, it is still over 35 words and so it would more ideally be a blockquote than incorporated in prose.

Illustration

• Official character image as fair use in infobox
• It isn't clear why the character infobox is using light blue coloration rather than standard infobox character colors? Is this something established for articles relating to the show?
• Unusual use of a gif - only in certain circumstances are gifs generally accepted for use in articles. I don't think this qualifies, as a still frame of the smile would suffice but, also, there is no significant discussion of the moment depicted at all, and none that warrants seeing the moment, so fair use probably isn't met at all.
• There is one free image of the actress.
  • The balance is off - when using multiple non-free images, it is recommended that there be equal or more free images. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but part of fair use is minimal usage. Where one of the non-free images is a gif, especially, it tips it more to the excessive usage side.

Copyright

• Besides the potential quote copyvio and unbalanced free/non-free image use, there is a large amount of text that appears directly copied, unquoted, uncited, from this source. See comparison here. The fact it is a complete section of the original source, only from one part of that source (not throughout), and the dates, it does appear that Wikipedia copied the other website, not the other way around. I can guess it wasn't cited because it is user-uploaded essay to a fan community website, which wouldn't fly.

Overall

• I read/do quick checks of articles before writing all review points, and can tell you already that this will be a quick fail and that my true advice is that the article should be deleted as the subject is a character with little-to-no real-world coverage to indicate notability/significance required for inclusion. I've even done some searching myself - there isn't any analysis of the character besides the one Chaney source in the article that is really about the narrative of the show, not the character; and there isn't any reception of the character, just regular reviews of the actress acting. I will still do a more complete review, to aid with writing better articles for notable characters. I see that it has been deleted previously, restored, and then there was an AfD which I am surprised was closed as keep given the actual content of the reasoning - it looks like it was treated as simply counting votes and also given preference because the Saul Goodman article exists (someone dropped some sources but they're the ones in the article as above-mentioned that focus on show or actress and mention the character, not sig cov of the character).
• Yes, it's also fairly poorly-written, has copyvio, and includes things that belong at different related articles, presumably included to bulk up this article enough to appear encyclopedic. So, those details are encyclopedic, but only as part of a different subject (the show as a whole, certain episodes) and still don't stand alone; also, including encyclopedic that is undue means the article hard-fails the broadness criterion. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)