# Talk:Saul Gone

}}

The Reception section includes an image of Odenkirk. The caption praises his performance. Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of low effort caption that editors add when they first decide they want to include an image in a section and only later as an afterthought attempt to add some kind of relevant caption. (Writing good quality descriptive captions is harder than it looks, which is why so many publications don't even bother anymore and only include the image Copyright credit and maybe indicate the person shown if you are lucky.)
The problem with this is that, at the time of writing, the Reception section does not include text to adequately support this phrasing. All the praise is presented as being for the character Jimmy/Saul. To make the caption more appropriate the Reception section would need to include text specifically praising the performance of the actor Bob Odenkirk, not just the character. (Alternatively awards nominations might indicate that his performance was praised.) Praise for the character could be intended as praise for the actor, but it seems more like praise for the writers and Vince Gilligan based on the current wording. I feel that if I had simply added a {{citation needed}} tag to the image caption editors might have misunderstood my point, and my concerns about making this a better encyclopedia article, so I wrote this longer explanation instead. 
Please try to improve the Reception section or rewrite the image caption. -- 109.76.205.82 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

For non free images, there absolutely must be strong justification for its use (such as that provided for the smoking scenes). But for free images, that justification us not as critical, though the caption should reflect the prose. Masem (t) 14:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The image of Odenkirk is a free image and is not under the same onerous requirements as the non-free image of Saul and Kim smoking (which seems to be adequately justified) but I think Masem is agreeing that relevance is still importance and the caption should be better supported by the article text. Editors might consider instead to note the return of Bestys Brandt as Marie Schrader which was clearly highlighted by at least one critic (or she could be added to the Casting section).[1] -- 109.76.205.82 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The image was moved out of the critical response section.[2] That works for me. -- 109.79.171.252 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv wanted to ask - what are the chances that this could promoted to a Featured Article? Although it's not as comprehensive as the El Camino page, I feel that this is lengthy enough that it could possibly reach that status. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My 2p is that it'd need a themes/analysis section and some rewriting in the reception section (WP:RECEPTION), but it's not a million miles off. JOEBRO64 03:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Might need some time to gather adequate research to make a themes section, but once I get to it I'll nominate. Thanks for your input. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, at a cursory glance I'd agree with Thejoebro64: content is good but the critical reviews are always the hardest material to get right. I would probably make an Analysis section with content from reviews and interviews/production crew that meshes well, on how the finale references other BCS/BB themes and motifs, foreshadowing, the subtext of various hand gestures and shots etc. A lot of this content is in Production.Reception should have clear topic sentences and paragraphs that switch freely between different reviewer's comments on the subject of the paragraph (cinematography; pacing; whether it worked well as a finale; acting; cameos etc.). I mention it a lot but Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is my go-to and I always refer to it when going to improve a Reception section. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about writing plot summaries other than they understandable should not be too long. But does anyone else feel we should we mention Kim volunteering for legal aid? While we don't know if it continued after the stuff with Saul, it seems an important plot point even if it's very brief. Notably IMO it fits well into points discussed both in this article: However, Gould considered Better Call Saul's ending an optimistic one, not just for Saul Goodman, but for Kim Wexler as well. With the two characters finally confessing their misdeeds, Gould felt both chose to end their cycles of self-destructive tendencies and would refrain from making the same mistakes again. He further acknowledged the challenging circumstances that awaited the two characters, with Saul spending his life in prison and Kim potentially facing a civil lawsuit, but Gould believed that in cleaning their conscience, both regained a part of their humanity and could begin living more honest lives. and the article for the previous episode: Seehorn interpreted that "a part of her has died" and her overall character as being a "shell of a person". She had discussed Kim's character with Gould and Gilligan, noting that while there was "nothing wrong with her life, quote unquote", her life was considered "tragic" as "It is only because we know what she could have been, and her potential and what she wanted, that it is so tragic to have her not practicing law, to have her not be using her brain to her full potential or her skill set". In her phone call with Gene, Seehorn interpreted that Kim had asked Gene to turn himself in "out of love that she’s saying this can’t be much of a life, like, turn yourself in". She also added that while Kim understood Gene had asked her to confess to her crimes was "defensive, reactive talk", it was also an indirect challenge to her conscience, which Seehorn believes encourages her to "take on her own conscience". I don't know if any reliable sources have noted this, but it seems to reflect the idea she is indeed finally able to move on in some fashion, after her confession. And also she may put her "skill set" to some minor but productive use. (Since it seems unlikely she will ever be able to be a lawyer again for various reasons including her confession she won't be putting them to her full use but volunteering for legal aid may allow her to at least put them to some use.) To be clear, I'm not suggesting we include any of this without sources I'm simply explaining why I think it belongs. I'm simply suggesting that we briefly mention that she volunteers for legal aid. Maybe something like "District Attorney Suzanne Ericsen warns Kim, who has begun volunteering at Central Florida Legal Aid, that Jimmy's testimony could affect her."? I mean it could go somewhere else or be worded in a different way although it's seems useful to mention chronologically when it happens since there's a big difference plot wise between it happening where it did or if it happened after she visited Saul. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Done. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)