Talk:The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr./GA1

GA Review

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

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.

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".
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.
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.
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.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Ditto.
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Passed GAN