Talk:The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Brisco County, Jr. (character) page now live

I have started a page for the character of Brisco. It is a work in progress, but hopefully it will grow into a quality article like this one. At the moment it needs to be looked at by somebody besides me to remove the "unreviewed" tag.AstroCog (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions before GAC

1. Who refers to the series as just "Brisco" or "Brisco County"? If it's not a significant number of people then this probably needs to go.
2. You have a quote box and an image in the "Concept" section. Per the MOS on image placement, you shouldn't sandwich text in between two visual aids. One either needs to be dropped completely, or moved somewhere else. Given that the image doesn't have text directly related to the section I would suggest moving/dropping it.
3. Watch the 1 and 2 sentence paragraphs. Most paragraphs should be between 5 and 7 sentences (unless they are long compound sentences).
4. Watch the cramming of visual and auditory aids. You have a lot going on in the page and at times those aids are bleeding together or bleeding into the next section. Think about where you can drop certain aids (e.g., eliminating a quote box and putting the quote directly in the prose to help beef the section up) or just moving them slightly down the section so as to not interfere with other aids or the previous/proceeding section.

These are just a few suggestions that I had time to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I have a few questions for follow-up:

• 1. Many sources refer to the show with the shorter name, including critics and people involved with the series. Several quotes in the article support this. I can add more to specifically reference the claim, if you think that is necessary.
• 2. Which image are you referring to? The one of Carlton Cuse?
• 4. I think one or two of the images could go. I tried to get rid of the newspaper ad, but the editor who uploaded it obviously *really* wants it here and I decided not to pick a fight.
• 4. Can you give some specific examples where the images/text get crammed together. It may be that I view webpages on a large screen, so things aren't compressed so much for me.

Again, thanks for taking the time to look over this. I see you also made useful tweaks to the Brisco character article, too. Much appreciated. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just put some sources next to the statement so that anyone reading will know that it wasn't simply called "Brisco" by fans who didn't want to recite the whole name.

Yes, the image of Carlton Cuse is what I was referring to. I mean, technically the same thing is happening with the motorcycle image but it's less sandwichy than the Carlton image. As for the cramming, a lot of it is simple positioning within the paragraph. I've taken care of most of them (exception the Carlton image). It would be nice if there was more music info so that the audio sample doesn't bleed into the next section because that's just an asthetic issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I created a note to explain the use of Brisco for shorthand. I also played a bit with the quote boxes and the paragraphs. I think it looks a bit better. I agree that in the Plot section, there might be a bit of visual aid cramming, but I guess it doesn't bother me so much. I think both images are needed for a reader completely unfamiliar with the series. The Orb is so hard to describe in words, and the image of a cowboy on a motorcycle is a perfect way to demonstrate the anachronistic nature of the show. As for the quote box, I dunno. I like having quotes broken up so that the paragraphs aren't too quote-y, if that makes any sense. AstroCog (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

---

This article is thorough and well-written, so good job. I see it's been through several peer reviews, so that's a plus. The one thing that makes this difficult to review is the type of source being cited—old magazines. I'll take under assumption that everything's being cited accurately, since it seems uncontroversial.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The prose is good-quality for Wikipedia and generally meets the MOS. I'm not sure the lead is sufficient, as it doesn't really touch on the "Production" section. Also, there are a few layout things I would improve: I would float the cancellation box to the right to maintain the left-right alternation. Also, you have a blank space after "Home media". The character list looks inconsistent to me: the main characters are listed as "Bruce Campbell as Brisco County, Jr.", while the recurring characters are listed "John Bly (Billy Drago)". I see this is how other FAs like Firefly (TV series) do it, but I'm not sure of the rationale.

   Minor typos: There are a few words that need to be italicized: 2001, Spin. "Carlton Cuse" is misspelled twice ("Carleton"). Also, in several of the references he is listed as "Cuse Carlton" without a comma. You should double check your en dashes too; I saw "1994-1995" and "258-259".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The references are fine. What you should probably do is link to the sources (such as St. Petersburg Times, etc.) in the references section at least once. It's not necessary, of course, but it would sure be nice to have links to archived articles where they exist – for example, "Fox president shoots for the top from the bottom line" (1994). But that's outside of GA.

   I'd be careful with the character summaries; they have an OR kind of tone, but that's a judgment call. I'm not sure about the use of "MacGuffin" in the lead section, either: unless a source uses that term, it could be considered OR to call it that.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This was a well-written article on a show I've never heard of. The content is balanced and in line with other television FAs/GAs. Good work. I'm assuming the source work was exhaustive since there are so many.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Nothing jumps out at me. Several editors have already reviewed the article, so any neutrality issues would've cropped up by now.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Ditto.

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):

   All the fair use rationales are fine, and all the media is captioned and laid out appropriately. You should double-check all the media pages and just make sure they're "clean", for example on File:Randy Edelman - Theme from The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.ogg you have two "licensing" messages, and the missing fields ("Performed by...") should either have "Unknown" or "N/A", etc.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I would just ask you to fix the MOS problems and check the media pages. Otherwise it meets the GA criteria easily. Thanks.

Reviewer: Designate (talk · contribs) 18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! This article has been a labor of love for me, and basically turned me into a Wikipedian. I agree with just about all the suggestions, and I have made the appropriate changes:

• I think I've taken care of the MOS issues. You're right about the cast listing. I just mimicked the Firefly article when I developed that section...but I was never comfortable with the inconsistent style. It's fixed now anyway. Fixed all the minor typos and typographic errors you found. I'm horrible with en and em dashes (who isn't?), but I checked through the article and I think I found all the offending instances. Hard to believe that Carlton Cuse was spelled as Carleton twice, given the fact that this article has had two peer reviews and a copy edit, but it's all fixed as well.
• I took out the use of the term "MacGuffin" from the lead, as I don't feel like digging through all the sources to see if any of them use it. Off the top of my head, I think Cuse may have used it once, but I'll have to go back eventually and check.
• Concerning character summaries, I've tried to stay close to MOS for TV, which allows some characterization based on the story without having to provide independent references. If I go to FAC with this article, I'll make another review of that content.
• The references are extensive, as you've noted. With the exception of a single reference (that crufty bit about a gun being used in the Firefly show), I tracked them all down, which often meant time in the New York Public Library flipping through binders or scanning microfiche. As such, it'll be a big project for me to go through them all and add links to abstracts. I will do that, however, since that could help with FAC. But, like you said, it's not required for GA. The source-work is about exhaustive as it's gonna get, I think. Every once in a while, I come across a reference I haven't found, but after using every database and physical catalog available to me, I've pretty much found it all.
• I double-checked the images for redundant licensing, and the only one was the music file, which I fixed. My long-term goal is to request the use of promotional images from Warner Bros., but I'm not holding my breath there.

Again, I really appreciate the review. If there's anything else that needs fixing/adjusting, let me know. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Good work and good luck if you head to FAC. —Designate (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Passed GAN

Pre-FAC comments

Hello! Per the request on my talk page, I'm going to outline some pre-FAC comments. Feel free to ask if you need explanation or clarification, as this page is going on my watchlist. Also, I should warn you that this list should not be considered comprehensive, particularly given my lack of familiarity with the topic.

• File:TheAdventuresOfBriscoCountyJropeninglogo.jpg: good idea to mention in the FUR that this is the main infobox image, and you're required to specify who holds copyright to this image
• File:TheAdventuresOfBriscoCountyJr_TheOrb.jpg: purpose of use could be expanded. Why is this important? What information do we get from the image that could not be conveyed by text alone?
• File:Randy_Edelman_-_Theme_from_The_Adventures_of_Brisco_County_Jr.ogg: should provide length of original sampled work
• File:BriscoAd.jpg: need more in general. Who holds copyright? Purpose of use should be much more explicit about why this image is useful
• I haven't checked this, but you should make sure the article contains no inadvertent WP:Close paraphrasing. I don't mean to accuse you of anything - like I said, I didn't check, but this will get checked at FAC, and I've seen good-faith editors fall on it
• Be very careful about phrases like "Poole's timid personality initially clashes with Brisco's laid-back demeanor, but the two men eventually bond through many shared investigations" - you're opening yourself up to accusations of WP:OR
• "Kay Gardella wrote in the New York Daily News (New York)" - redundant
• As a general point, try to make the article as accessible as possible to readers unfamiliar with your topic
• Don't link things in See also already linked in article text
• Don't italicize place names or quotes
• FN 1: ISBN?
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• FN 24: is this source paginated?
• Don't include cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks a bunch for this review! I've started to fix some things that you mentioned here. One thing I need help with: "Don't italicize places names or quotes". Can you give specific examples in the article? The only times I see this are when there are works being mentioned in a quote, and the individual work is italicized, e.g. "The orb was like the black rectangle in 2001,..." Is that incorrect usage, or did you mean something else? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One example would be the one I called "redundant": Daily News (New York). The "New York" portion, if kept, should be unitalicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

All of the above issues should be taken care of now. Concerning the potential OR from the synopsis section, it's within MOS:TV to include this kind of summary, with the assumption that the reference is the show or film itself. However, during FAC review, I'll see what reviewers say and can possibly makes adjustments as necessary. AstroCog (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My comments: The summary is pretty thin. I suppose you were trying to avoid being too crufty, as many articles about TV shows are little more than plot summaries, but seeing as there are no individual episode summaries, there is room to expand a bit, and mention notable episodes in more detail. And in particular, to explain who and what Bly is, as that was pretty important in the first half of the series. There is no need to avoid spoilers. Barsoomian (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to avoid cruft. Again, my model was Firefly, which has a fairly spartan summary. I wasn't trying to avoid spoilers, but the information about Bly and the Orb are dealt with in the article in a way so that a general reader understands that the Orb is weird and Bly wants it to travel to the future. Concerning a detailed plot, I am planning to create a separate "List of Brisco episodes" page, which will be a stand-alone article, with plot summaries, writer and director info, etc. Having that as something to point to will help alleviate the desire by some to have that awful looking episode list that used to be on the page, or to have a minutely detailed plot. That said, I'm open to adding some specific plot points that are very important for a general reader to understand the show while reading the article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Firefly has both a List of episodes page, and articles for each episode, but here there is neither. In their absence, adding a few paragraphs to the current article would not be excessive, and could be moved to a separate article later should that happen. As for plot, I think that both Bly and the Orb being from the future are important points. (Which implies that it's advanced technology, not "supernatural", though that may be SYN unless it's stated in the show.) But I leave it up to you, I'm not a big fan and have only watched about half the series myself. Otherwise, I note the separate "Broadcast #" column in your episode table is redundant to the "Date aired" column. You could mention the episodes broadcast out of order in the text and why, if you know. Barsoomian (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Science fiction Western

Why isn't this tv show described as a science fiction Western, rather than the more unwieldy description western/science fiction? This show is definitively a sci-fi western. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was me that introduced that description, and I don't have a strong preference either way, but an argument could be made to keep western / science fiction: Brisco has sci-fi elements in much of the series, but it isn't strictly a sci-fi western, since there are significant stretches of the show that don't involve much sci-fi at all, e.g. the last third of the series. AstroCog (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Episode Guide

Go to hell, quit deleting the much needed episode guide! I worked hard to make it up to date and include prominent guest stars!!! 67.246.145.67 (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That kind of attitude isn't going to get you anywhere. Please read WP:BRD. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not keep adding this episode list to the article. This is a featured article and the episode list you keep adding was removed long ago, and it is not featured article quality. I agree that there should be an episode list for this show, but I don't think this article is the place for it. There should be a separate list article with the episodes. I have a placeholder for this purpose: User:Astrocog/List_of_''The_Adventures_of_Brisco_County,_Jr.''_episodes So it is definitely in the queue to happen. If you're not patient enough for me to complete that list article, then work on it yourself, but please don't keep this edit war going. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not just put your "placeholder" article in normal article space? It looks good enough to me. Linking to it isn't going to harm this article. If we had to wait until every article was perfect and complete before putting it online, there wouldn't be many articles here at all. It's not really collaborative to tell others to go ahead and post their own version if you're intending to just paste your own version over it and replace it later on. Barsoomian (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Made the move, so it's in main space now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

R. Lee Ermey

R. Lee Ermey occasionally shows up as the ghost (???) of Brisco's father. This isn't mentioned in the article, so I've added an x-ref. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

He showed up in one scene in the pilot, and then again in one more episode as a ghost. Thanks for adding the wikilink! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2