# Talk:Waterworks (Better Call Saul)

Here is the poster: https://twitter.com/BetterCallSaul/status/1556646411566981120 Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I clarified pronoun antecedents because the assumption must be that anyone reading this episode summary hasn't actually seen the episode and doesn't know who "he" is in any given sentence. The plotline is completely different depending on who "he" is in any given sentence. What is the value to the article by reverting these changes? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv do you think this page would be sufficient to be promoted to GA status? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Flowerkiller1692: yeah I think this is definitely suitable to be nominated. For the time being, I've upgraded it to B-class as it definitely meets those criteria. — Bilorv (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@Flowerkiller1692 @Bilorv I'm aware that I'm a little late to the party, but do you think the page is still suitable for a GAN right now? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Dcdiehardfan: in my opinion, yes, but you should look carefully through the article and see if you can make any improvements. New rules generally require a GA nominator to have higher authorship than you do at the moment, but if there are no objections then this talk page discussion should be sufficient to nominate. — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I personally think the article is pretty good to go all in all. I'll try to see if there can be any more improvements obviously as I go through and try to fix the BCS S6 articles and prep them for GA. With that being said, I shall then entrust @Flowerkiller1692 or @Lilycitrus to start the GAN! Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll let you guys nominate this. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Flowerkiller1692 I'm not able to as I do not pass the authorship threshold. I also reached out to Lilycitrus about this so hopefully they'll respond to it soon. I think for the sake of time though, it would be better if you had done it as it'll be in GAN status quicker. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I've never nominated anything before in the past so I wouldn't know how to do it. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Bilorv would it be possible if you think you can start the GA review for this page? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Flowerkiller1692 All you would have to do is simply just go edit the source of the talk page and insert the necessary text in as per WP:GAI but I guess I'll go ahead and do it. I've examined the rules again and don't really see anything specific about authorship thresholds anyways, just that anyone with a 10% of less contribution to the given article can do an auto reject. With that being said, I'll go forward with it since it seems to be uncontested. -Dcdiehardfan (talk)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Waterworks (Better Call Saul)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 03:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll be doing this review over the coming days. The article looks to be in pretty good shape from a quick read. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U hey there! I appreciate you taking the time out of your day for doing so. Thanks a lot for doing so and I hope you enjoy! :) Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U Just checking, how is the GA review going so far? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Dcdiehardfan Here are my comments from a first run through. Sorry its a little late, irl stuff and some other Wikipedia stuff caught up to me. I'll hold it for 7 days. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


### Spotcheck
Note: The editing did alter the order of some refs. Regardless, I'll try my best to address all the below issues -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Fair use image with a legitimate claim and other image is correctly licensed
Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
4. I'm aware that other BCS GAs include this information, but I'm noting here that I'm uneasy about this potentially being too close to original research.
 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
11. I get what this is citing, but this appears to be OR/synth. Someone else needs to make that comparison, not us.
I think you meant the Vox source. Source 11 is a Variety article that discusses the cigarette scene. I removed it and instead expanded commentary on the final scene. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
18. Claim 1 verified. Claim 2 verified, but I have some concerns listed below. Claim 3 not verified (perhaps mention the episode's use of color instead?). Claim 4 verified. Claim 5 verified. Claim 6 verified, though I would specifically name Kim in the sentence to make it more clear; I have some concerns about the rest of the sentence below.
 Fixed More commentary regarding scenes in color and final scenes -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
24. Verified.
Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
25. See below comment about the reliability of MEAWW.
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
28. Verified, but concerns listed below.
I think this should have been addressed, hopefully. Let me know if not. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
In addition MEAWW is not a reliable source and is considered a clickbait/tabloid sort of source. It's been discussed before and is also listed at WP:KO/RS#UR (which is how I'm familiar with it)

 Removed CEd the surrounding area -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


### Lede
I think this lede doesn't adequately cover the entire body and I think there's room for expansion. Let me know if you need more assistance on this.

Assistance requested. What more would be needed? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I would think a little more information on why critics praised the things mentioned in the lede would be relevant for the second paragraph. In addition, the plot could be elaborated upon in the first paragraph. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


### Plot
repeatedly Is this necessary?
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
forcing him to flee. Its been a while since I watched this, but the plot should include the ending of the episode.
 Done More clarification provided as the plot does feature Gene opening the door and ending it there, if not met, I think I would like further clarification what's the issue.  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Dcdiehardfan Ah that was a mistake on my part. Its been a while since I watched and I misremembered the plot. I think the house is redundant and was a bad suggestion on my part. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


### Production
Per MOS:TVNOW, This is Gilligan's only solo writing credit for the series should be in past tense.
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
In her phone call with Gene, Seehorn opined that - Rephrase so it doesn't imply that Seehorn opined this literally during her phone call during the episode.
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This section seems to overuse the pluperfect where it doesn't make sense. Only information about pre-production should use "had"; information about the production of the episode itself should use regular past tense (eg. To emphasize the pain of the moment, Gilligan had opted to make the scene longer and contain minimal dialogue so that the audience could understand that it was "pathetic and meant to be".). I think part of this is because the section introduces new factoids in a strange order (more recent to older, as opposed to the oldest to most recent).
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
with digital matte paintings used to give the illusion of a tropical environment Awkwardly added onto the sentence, I would think connecting the two clauses with an "and" would be better.
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The episode featured a scene in which Jesse Pinkman meets Kim outside of Saul Goodman's office, in which he asks her if Saul is a good lawyer, and she replies "When I knew him, he was". Duplicates plot section? I'm sure there's good stuff to be written on this scene, but this sentence doesn't provide that.
 Removed Context on Jesse's scene already provided later  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:TVNOW The title "Waterworks" had alluded to either her emotional breakdown or the presence of Saul Goodman in her life again should be in present tense.
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
only needed "need" has a specific meaning-- Gilligan says they only did two takes.
 Fixed  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
despite the scene not progressing the plot much farther Rephrase
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


### Reception
Harley called the episode "masterful [and] full of emotionally walloping moments, black comedy, and satisfying reveals [and] among the very best Vince Gilligan-verse hours assembled", further commenting that the musical score and the black-and-white footage helped contribute to a "paranoid noir vibe" throughout the episode Very loong sentence that should be split. I'm also not a fan of the long quote in the beginning and it seems both fluffy and unnecessary. Copying from the advice in Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections: Use quotes only for illustration, not because you can't think of an alternative. Idiosyncratic turns of phrase make for nice magazine pull quotes, but here are subordinate to your need to impart the review's essence and tighten the flow between sentences. Consider whether each word serves the paragraph's point. (I believe the text around the second quote also essentially repeats Harley)
 Fixed  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Seehorn's performance was highlighted by many critics, particularly citing the scene of her performance during Kim's emotional breakdown on the bus. Awkardly phrased. May I suggest Indiewire, Collider, andd Rolling Stone each praised Seehorn's performance, highlighting Kim's emotional breakdown on the bus. In addition, I think separating out praise for Seehorn into a separate paragraph from general praise for the episode is necessary.
 Done Tried to do better split the paras of Reception  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Harley called the performance "transcendent", while Chase Hutchinson of Collider said that "though Seehorn says little in these scenes, her physical performance is nothing short of revelatory as we journey with her through the rubble of her past", feeling that the integrity of Kim's character had differed from the conduct of the other characters in the show, which made her breakdown scene "nothing short of heartwrenching" and "precisely what the show needed". Another very long sentence with quotes that aren't very necessary. See above comment.
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
TVLine named Burnett as an honorable mention for "Performer of the Week", for the week of August 13, 2022. They wrote, "Burnett's legacy as a TV icon is unquestioned, but it's nice to see she can still add to that legacy — at 89 years old! — with finely calibrated work like this." Again I fail to see how the quote adds to the article in a way that paraphrasing would not.
 Removed  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
There appears to be a bit of imbalance in the reception section. Reading the NYTimes review when verifying sources, I can see that it states that Jesse's casting felt like stunt casting that didn't add to the episode. They also stated that Jeff's car wreck seemed implausible.

 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


### Other
Howard Hamlin and Jesse Pinkman are linked twice.
 Done Not sure about this one as both seemed to be linked only once across the entire article  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Seehorn should be wikilinked in the image caption.
 Done  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U I appreciate the comments and have went back and integrated the suggestions to the best of my ability. Let me know if there are any improvements/adjustments to be made.  -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I haven't taken a look at the edits yet, but I see some of my concerns in #Spotcheck haven't been answered yet? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U Sorry, I thought there was some overlap with the other components and thought that I would be killing two birds in one stone by addressing below issues, which would help fix those. I'll go ahead and do a more in-depth examination now. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U Any new advice/inputs with my new edits? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@Dcdiehardfan Sorry for the lack of updates, I just got back from a 4-day trip. I'll take a look at the article now ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U No worries, and I hope you had a good trip. Let me know any other concerns you have! Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I've added two responses above. I also have a concern about the sentence , adding the musical score and black-and-white footage helped contribute to a "paranoid noir vibe" throughout the episode which doesn't make sense? While I think the reception section has definite room for improvement, outside of these concerns I don't see anything holding back the GA promotion. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U Ok I went ahead and did an edit to address the issues. Let me know what else do you think is left for improvement. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)