The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:15, 16 January 2012 [1].

---

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.[edit]

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr./archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot

Nominator(s): AstroCog (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has been worked on extensively by me for the past year. It has been greatly expanded, and I believe it is comprehensive. It has undergone two peer reviews and a copy edit, plus informal reviews by other editors upon request. Last month, it was promoted to Good Article status. I think it meets the FA criteria, and I am ready to make any adjustments as necessary during this process to bring it up to Featured Article status. AstroCog (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - What can I do help the process here? A week has gone by without any comments, while almost all the other more recent nominations have received some feedback. I know everyone's busy, but I'd hate to slip through the cracks. I'm going to post requests on the Wikiprojects, but do any of the active FAC reviewers have some feedback for me? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll have a brief look. Not enough time to support or oppose, but hopefully it will get things moving. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Great comments. I'm working on some of the issues now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support following comments and discussion below. 22:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Initial comments made at 00:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lead: I would put this bit (The series is set in 1893) earlier and in the first paragraph, as that is critical information.

• Done. Had to rearranged a bit, but I think it actually reads better now. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As someone from the UK, I'd never heard of this. Is it as obscure as it sounds? Was it never, ever sold to networks abroad?

• I think it was aired in Australia and Canada, because in my source mining, I saw newspapers from those countries mention it, but nothing substantial enough to include here. I've looked pretty much everywhere, but haven't been able to get additional info on this. Enough time has gone by that it may prove very difficult to find this for other countries. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You could link Jules Verne - I know it is within a quote, but here the link will be fine. You could also link The Wild Wild West in that quote, but it is linked later anyway.

• Let's see what other reviewers say. This has gone back and forth during copy edits and peer reviews, and I don't want to change it just to have to revert it back. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It's not clear where the sourcing is for the 'Cast' section. You do need some sourcing here. Also, eight bullet points may not be the best way to present this information.

• This has always been the section I'm on the fence with. WP:TVPLOT allows for a plot description, including character descriptions, with the assumption that the show itself is the source of the information, so citing the show isn't necessary. It could be that I could remove anything too "analytical" from the character descriptions, and work that info into the plot section. Doing this instead of having a separate character section is also allowed by MOS:TV. Would that be an adequate compromise here? AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note 1 on the name of the show is a bit overdone. You don't need all those examples to convince us.

• Agreed, and done. I had done that originally to appease a reviewer earlier this year. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "by 1996 it was being used during coverage of the Olympics" - this would be the Atlanta Olympics? If so, why not link to that article? Or does this include the Winter Olympics as well?

• Winter Olympics, too. When I watched the last winter Olympics in Vancouver, NBC was still using the music during every commercial break. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Some of the sourcing looks WP:OR-ish. For example, you say "During the broadcast run of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., TV Guide was a frequent booster" - and you source that to what looks like one of the magazine's positive reviews. The question here is who is saying that 'TV Guide was a frequent booster'? You can't just conclude that yourself, you need some source to state that before you can say that in the article.

• I just removed that bit. It's ironic, because I'm a nit-picker of OR in other articles (like when I do GA reviews), but because I've been editing this one for so long, I miss subtle stuff like that. AstroCog (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• On a general note, you give extensive quotes to buttress many of the sources. You shouldn't really need to quote as much as you do - that verges on what it sometimes called a quote farm. It matters little whether the quotes are in the footnotes on in the main text, you are still quoting extensively.

• I'll just take those out. I use a generator for references, and it has a field for "relevant excerpt", which I used quite a bit. I rationalized that it'd help others confirm that the source supports the statements in the article, and didn't seem controversial when I put them in. Doesn't hurt the article to lose them, however. AstroCog (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You should provide a source for the title listings and air dates - is this taken directly from IMDb and TV.com, or is it from the DVD release? Which of those three is the most reliable as a source?

• From the DVD release booklet. I'll get that referenced. I actually thought it was! AstroCog (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The 'Cancellation' section has a bit from Fox with the Sandy Grushaw quote. Did they make an official announcement about the cancellation, or does that not tend to happen? Also, why is the Cuse quote put in an quote box and not used in the main text? The quote box looks more like an image there, and I think Cuse's reaction should be covered in the main text as well.

Overall, the article reads well, and informed me as a reader. The weakest section is the 'Cast' section (unsourced, repeats stuff from elsewhere). My main concern, other than that, is the type of sourcing used. The sourcing appears to be mainly TV magazine reviews and guides from the time or retrospectives, and personal reminiscences and interviews with the producers and cast (as featured on the DVD extras produced). How reliable is that type of sourcing, really? There seems to be little from the Fox side of things. My concerns on that side of things are alleviated somewhat by the use of: Porter, Bartley and Porter, Lynnette (2010); Brooks, Tim and Marsh, Earle (2007); Longworth, James L. (2002) and other academic sourcing (such as 'Journal of Popular Film and Television'). But I looked at this and was distinctly unimpressed - I hope there isn't more of that level of sourcing in this article? What makes 'rci.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/Brisco-County-Jr' a reliable source? It looks to me like a fan website hosted at a university. Who is 'Charles McGrew' (an interview with him is used later as well) and who is being quoted in the 'Besides, we couldn't AFFORD' quote? Is that 'Dean Treadway' or someone else? It is very unclear from that page who is saying what. It looks like a record of a collection of correspondence between a fan and TNT, and some quotes from a USENET newsgroup. That needs sorting before any support is likely. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well, apart from the TNT correspondence webpage, I'm not sure which sources you have an issue with. In the process of gathering reference material, I sorted through many other refs, and tried to only the include the ones that had the best quality. The sourcing isn't just from TV magazines and guides, it's from major newspapers and magazines. In the US, TV Guide is a major publication, and in the 1990s, it was (in my opinion) much higher quality than it is today. Hard to find fault with other publications, such as the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Some smaller newspapers are included, but I don't think they are given undue weight versus major publications. As far as the TNT correspondence from the self-published website, I'd like to find a way to keep this. It is only used for one fact - that of the cost of the show. While the website suffers from poor formatting, to me it's clear that this was actual correspondence, and that the quote used is from the network and not the person receiving the emails. As for the interview on the same site, I don't see why that couldn't be included. Again, it's used for just one statement in the article, and it's from an interview with Campbell himself. If these are the worst offenders in terms of refs included, I can live without them, but I'd prefer to leave them. I modeled this article originally after Firefly, an FA for a short-lived series, and that one includes WAY more fan-type and crufty references than this article... AstroCog (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've removed the two 'Charles McGrew' refs and related sentences. Perhaps they can be put back in if a consensus emerges that they are reliable enough. AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Have re-read the article and am comfortable supporting now, even though I said I wouldn't have time to do so. The support comes with the caveat that someone should probably do a spot-check of the sources used. I haven't had time to do that. Will try and check back on this, but am trying to disengage from reviewing for the next week or so. Will enter my support above. Hope you get some reviews from others as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

• Synopsis
  • While the rules allow direct information from the subject to be used in plot synopsis without citation, analysis such as this, "... later form a partnership based on trust and respect" (determining that their future relationship is based on certain values), would require a secondary source in my opinion.
• Cast
  • Perhaps it is my personal beef with the structure, but I do not like a bullet list for the Cast. There are also possible original research with "Socrates' milquetoast personality often puts him ill at ease during Brisco's adventures" and "Whip is impulsive and easily provoked" (per the earlier reasoning). Though the following examples are of films, I believe they can apply to television series and would prefer sorting the casting and actor information like Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, American Beauty, or Conan the Barbarian.

• • I've put character info into the synopsis and rearranged the cast info so that it resembles the pages you mention here. AstroCog (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Home Media
  • I do not think it is really appropriate to include Lacey's own opinion of his efforts here, considering that it is an extraordinary claim (in my view) and only himself states it as such. That said, if we cut out this claim, we can merge the first two paragraphs and rephrase the resulting statements a bit to obtain a smoother read of the events on the DVD.
• Media
  • While File:BruceCampbellUSONov09.JPG is in the public domain and highly detailed, I have a preference for either File:Bruce Campbell2.jpg (if you want the body) or File:Bruce Campbell at FSC (2).jpg (crop it for the face). The spectacles in that USO photograph kind of distracts and the crop of his head does Campbell no justice in my view; furthermore, I believe Campbell's smirk (as shown in the Florida Supercon shot) is sort of Brisco's trademark look.
    • Good idea. I like the FSC picture. I downloaded it and I'll try a crop and upload it later. AstroCog (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To me, File:TheAdventuresOfBriscoCountyJr TheOrb.jpg and File:BriscoAd.jpg does not comply with WP:NFCC #8. There is no critical commentary about the contents of the advertisement, and one does not really need to see the fictional Orb to get the sense that it was a mysterious object capable of miracles (basically, what it can do is so outlandish that we can imagine anything; if it was based on science, then we might have a case to satisfy our "oh, so that is how it may be able to do that"). Regardless, I could describe the Orb as a golden globe studded with rods.
    • Fair enough. I'm a bit concerned that taking out all these images and quote boxes will make the article just a block of text, though. AstroCog (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Looks like some other editor has restored one of the non-free images to the article. See here. This has happened before, and right now I don't feel like getting in an edit war. AstroCog (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I do not see his reason ("this one seems appropriate, both in section on showing Fox's original backing of the show")[2] as valid in any way: one does not need the poster to see Fox backed the show, it can be very easily conveyed in words. Personally, I suggest reverting and pointing to this FAC for further discussion; if re-reverted (or alternatively do this straight away), nominate the image at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Randy Edelman - Theme from The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.ogg requires a more detailed explanation (rationale) for why it would comply with NFCC; i.e. it needs to state what this sample is actually illustrating (is it "It was original, and it seemed to have the right spirit. It's got a very flowing melody, it's triumphant, and it has a certain warmth" or "a 'button,' an ending flourish that works really well"?).

    Just noticed that the commentary in the article is from Edelman himself. This does not feel quite right to me then if the only critical commentary on the theme comes from its composer. I think the inclusion of non-free material would be more justifiable if it was based on critiques from secondary sources. Are there no reliable sources that commented on the theme? Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • That's the only commentary I know of. Given that, can we just include it? It comes from the LA Times, quite a major newspaper. The included sound clip illustrates the "flowing melody" part of the description. AstroCog (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Regardless of where it is published, it is still from a primary source (to the music). It does not play well with the preference (or should I say, practice) here of relying on secondary sources. It might be throwing out a strawman, but allowing inclusion of a non-free material just because the author has commentary would open up a can of worms (or perhaps, better to say, establish a can-of-worms-like precedent) in my opinion; every "fresh" artist is going to have samples of all their work just because they talk about it (even if critics say the works are lacking in substance or so common that warrants not commentary at all). Jappalang (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'll look for more about this theme. The LA Times itself is still independent of the artist, and the article is about the theme itself, and just happens to include the artist's take on it. I'd prefer to keep the music sample, because it allows a reader to recognize the theme, especially since it's used in the Olympics. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this article has a spike in readers every time the Olympics comes around, because people are googling the music to see where it came from. AstroCog (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I think the sample helps supports Darling's comments, so after changing its rationale, I see no reason to contest the use of this sample. Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• References
  • I do not think reference 65 should be attributed to "IGN DVD" (yeah, I know that is what they brand it, but..). "IGN DVD staff" would be more appropriate in my view.
    • Fixed. AstroCog (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am mostly fine with the use of TV magazine reviews and guides (for a cult television series, sources would be more scarce than the mainstream); however, it seems Cinefantastique, which reports many insider news, and other publications are missing (Ultimate DVD may be useful for its report on the DVD release). That said, like Carcharoth, I am wary of using personal correspondences published by individuals of unknown background. They should be treated as self-published sources and a certain expertise and reliance by the industry on their part should be proven. I agree with Carcharoth that the article is well-written, and hopefully all the issues can get sorted out in a reasonably fast amount of time because I like Brisco County, Jr and would be happy to see a quality article on it here. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I searched Cinefantastique and found nothing on the show. As for Ultimate DVD, I cannot locate a searchable database for the publication, and I have access to every major periodical database. If you have access to the publication and can provide a link to the relevant article, I'll be happy to add it. As I've said, I've searched far and wide - I've gone through every available online periodical database, and have even searched through magazines/newspapers only available in bound volumes and microfiche, and what I've included is about as comprehensive as it gets. There's one or two short reviews I haven't incorporated yet, but if you can point to a specific article from a publication not included here, let me know. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks like Ultimate DVD may have something on the show (Ultimate DVD; May2006, Issue 75), but I don't have online access to the article. I'll have to do some footwork this weekend to track it down. AstroCog (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Found Cinefantastique at the NY Public Library. Unfortunately, Ultimate DVD isn't available here, and isn't available in print or electronic form from any other source I've got. That review will just have to go on the wish-list. AstroCog (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I fear you might have more to do... looking around... since 1 Oct 93 Brisco has been in the bottom 10 of ratings (late Oxt 93, Jan 94, late Jan 94, mid-Feb 94, early Mar 94); X-Files is a sporadic companion. Instead of cancelling the series quickly per standard practice, Fox decided to go for a full season instead (X-Files too).[3] Fox's Sandy Grushow was openly declaring for Campbell to be the "next TV star" with Brisco when the show started.[4] And Cinefantastique said that Fox was actually thinking that Brisco would be the "break-out show for the fall of 1993" (X-Files was the overlooked second-stringer), but that X-Files became the "hot property" by the end of the season instead.[5] Kenneth Biller was also involved in developing Brisco (note:one sentence mention by Cinefantastique).[6] EW confirmed Brisco as "one of the lowest-rated shows" of the 1993–94 season,[7] and confirms in June 94 that the show was axed.[8] Bruce Fett says Brisco was more violent than Walker, Texas Ranger.[9] McNamara comments about the 8 p.m. timeslot here at EW. In December 2004, Kirthana Ramisetti appealed for the DVD to be produced.[10] Ken Tucker calls it a one-season wonder that was "ahead of its time".[11] There is some information about the sound production of the show on p. 311 of Practical Art of Motion Picture Sound Billboard notes that Edelman's scores that closed the Olympic games won him an Emmy.[12]

  There may be more information that can be mined at these web sources (several of which would definitely qualify as reliable or whose authors are recognized experts): "A Fistful of Geek" from Slant Magazine (quite a lot it seems from this one), "Friday Flashback" from CraveOnline, "Brisco County Jr. Rides Again at Comic-Con, and on DVD" from Home Media Magazine, "One-Season Wonders" at SFX, IGN's interview with Campbell (his thoughts on Brisco), Luke Copping of Auxiliary magazine suggests that Campbell faded after Brisco before redeeming himself with Burn Notice. Jappalang (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• IGN reviews the DVD here, Los Angeles Times has an article on Rutherford (with a few snippets on her Brisco career, including the Garbo-Dietrich image of Dixie). South Florida Sun-Sentinel's version of Rutherford, AllRovi's overview and synopsis for Brisco (if you need sourcing for plot details and such, this could be it). Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Apparently, the Railtown 1897 State Historic Park was also used for some scenes;[13] it still has the foam rocks[14] and a perspective painting.(Reed Parsell, "Nostalgia reigns at railroad park", ProQuest document ID: 1010210561) N. F. Mendoza has a short article on Clemenson, "With an Eye on ... Christian Clemenson on the virtues of playing Socrates to 'Brisco', Los Angeles Times, ProQuest document ID: 59493567. Peter Johnson, USA Today (Feb 7, 1994), ProQuest document ID: 4175066, comments about the change in direction in mid-season (more comedy and adventure). I also note that Cary Darling, whose article is currently used as a source, talked about how the show handled black cowboys and that its over-the-top fantasy elements may had been the cause of the show's demise. Those comments are not reflected in the article. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for the additional articles/links. It could be that EW has improved its archive since I first looked. I primarily use aggregate databases (Lexus-Nexus, Film and Television Literature, Academic Search Complete, etc), rather than going to each source one by one, and what is in the article is at least comprehensive from those searches. I've done a LOT of googling, using scholar, books, etc and didn't come across a few you mentioned, so I'm glad you pointed them out. I'll incorporate them into the article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• A few of those EW links just have the ratings info for a handful of Brisco episodes. Ratings info can be best put into the episode table in the Broadcast History section. However, is it worth it to just include the ratings for a few episodes, rather than the whole thing? AstroCog (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I do not think the Ratings need to be listed (unless the entire season's are obtained; a partial list invites more consternation than bestows comprehension in my opinion). What I would find useful of those EW ratings links is to lump them up as one reference and use it to cite that since Oct 93, Brisco dropped to the bottom ten of the ratings. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've incorporated pretty much all the EW refs, plus a few others you mentioned above. The other web and blog reviews I'll incorporate later, probably using them as refs for plot and character stuff first and then also in the reception section for the DVD. The ref mentioning Edelman getting an Emmy for his Olympics work isn't specific enough about the Brisco theme for inclusion. He had other material of his used by NBC, so I don't want to claim Brisco as part of that Emmy until the fact has been verified somewhere else (I dug around, and couldn't find much). The EW article where Sandy Grushaw says that he'll eat his desk if Campbell doesn't become a star is unnecessary, since the same quote is used in the article with a different ref. AstroCog (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've removed the two 'Charles McGrew' refs and related sentences. Perhaps they can be put back in if a consensus emerges that they are reliable enough. AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I note that you have made quite a few changes. I notice some roughness in the language (e.g. the sudden break in subject flow in Production design when the topic suddenly changes from horse sounds to the Orb, the proseline feel of the first paragraph in Home media, etc.). Take care. I think I will re-read the entire article before making more comments. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I wouldn't call it a roughness in language. I just forgot to separate the paragraphs when I put in the new material. It's fixed now. As for the proseline, I don't think it's as bad as you make it sound, but it can be tweaked. Thanks for the other sources. You've gotta be digging in the deep cuts of google to find some of those, because I've spent a year researching refs and never saw the railroad one. As for black cowboys, it's mentioned earlier in the article, and I do give Darling's quote about Brisco being "multiracial" - though I had thought about including his bit about the accuracy of black cowboys. I'm pretty busy right now grading and giving final exams to my college students, so it'll be few days probably before I fully implement some new changes based on this stuff. Also a few days before I can get to the NY public library to dig up old Cinefantastique and Ultimate DVD articles (only available on-site there). You're holding this article to a pretty high standard, but I do appreciate that. I wonder if current FA Firefly would hold up under such scrutiny. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've put in a lot of work expanding the article with material from 17 (!) more sources. I've got a small handful other articles with redundant info and nothing new, so it's not worth adding those. Regarding Kenneth Biller, your Cinefantastique link isn't specific enough where to find that one-sentence. I flipped through several issues from that volume. The NYPL keeps those magazines in storage, and they have to be specially requested and read under supervision, so I wasn't about to spend a whole afternoon flipping through every page of a year's worth of Cinefantastique to find one sentence that says Kenneth Biller had something to do with the show. He's not been mentioned in any other source, or by the writers or producers of the show, so I doubt it's worth pursuing. I think I've incorporated everything else, or nearly everything else mentioned above. Let me know how the article is looking now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No problems (Biller seems more likely to have a very minor role in the writing). I am re-reading the article, so please bear for a bit. Enjoy the holidays. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some more questions:

Synopsis

• "Clemenson mused, 'The orb was like the black rectangle in 2001, possibly from the future, possibly someplace other than Earth... I have a theory that [the writers] didn't even know and it would be whatever they needed it to be.'"

  This seems needless, especially when the in-story nature of the Orb was revealed near the final encounter with Bly.

Signature show elements

• "Viewers of the show, living in the modern era, have the benefit of 100 years of hindsight and may be puzzled by the fact that technologies so familiar and useful in the 20th and 21st centuries are not exploited further."

  Are they puzzled that Cuse and gang did not create more stories with "old" versions of new technology or that the Old West did not have such technologies?

  You missed the sentence previous to that, which sets it up. Viewers could be puzzled by the fact that useful technologies discovered/created in the series often aren't remarked on again in later episodes (e.g. "Brisco, I wish we had those motorcycles again!") This is a criticism from the journal article. I don't completely agree with it, because Brisco does use the rocket car again in a subsequent episode, but since there isn't a secondary source counter to it, it would be OR of me to say that.AstroCog (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you for the explanation. It clarifies a lot; I asked because the original statement was very puzzling to me. Would this be a clearer representation? Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pilot episode

• This section has a feel of a quote farm; i.e. quotes follow quotes. One way of rectifying this is to pick out common points among the reviewers and present it as a paragraph of its own. For example, it appears that while their overall opinions are polar opposites, David Hiltbrand and Walter Goodman actually raises the same points.

I've re-done and rearranged this section, so that common elements are combined and the structure is more coherent. Many of the quotes remain, though I find that the quote density is not that different from, say, the reception section in Star Trek VI, one of your FA examples. AstroCog (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links

• It seems to me that the IMDb and TV.com links serve the same content. External links are to provide extra unique helpful content (that cannot be put into the article). There should not be a list of sites that do the same thing. Either IMDb or TV.com should go (the one that has less useful content should be eliminated).

  Agreed. Those links are a relic from before I started editing this article, and I never messed much with that section. AstroCog (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've edited this section. Looking at the linked pages, the two websites offer slightly different information, which readers may want. IMDB has comprehensive cast and crew information, while TV.com has a decent summary of each episode. I pared the links down to reflect this. AstroCog (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I re-read the article with newly added material, it seems to me that it frequently justify several elements of the show with comments from the primary source (Signature show elements). Sparsely and carefully used, such a style adds flavor and fills gaps. However, if used too often, it introduces the question of bias (WP:NPOV: there is no problem if opinions are presented as opinions and countered or supported with secondary sources); Wikipedia policy advises to base articles on secondary sources to avoid such calls. Can we find opinion or statements from secondary sources to explain why certain parts of the show were done this way or such, rather than to rely on the cast and production crew? For example, Rutherford's own thoughts (primary) are used to describe her character (combining Mae West with Madonna), yet Porter and Porter's (a secondary source) comparison of Dixie as Mae West more than Miss Kitty is missing. It felt a bit odd that Porter and Porter's material, published by a university, is used only twice in this article. Jappalang (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of these issues seem fairly easy to address. Before I do a bunch of work on this, though: is this all from your end? I'd like to know where the goalpost is. AstroCog (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am leaning towards supporting the article; resolution of the above would have my support. Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the change to the reception section, has everything been resolved to your liking? AstroCog (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: I thank you for undertaking the endeavor to make the article a comprehensive account of the show. There may be some things that might require polishing but your efforts here (and what already exists in the article) make me confident that the flaws would be few or can be overcome easily. Farewell. Jappalang (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I made some more changes based on your feedback, especially with regards to using secondary sources over primary. I also used the Porter and Porter ref a few more times, per your recommendation. I'd say your feedback has really helped make this a much better article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Upon nomination it had some noticeable issues which were pointed out by other users (I was working on my own nomination and couldn't review this one in depth), but since these were resolved, I see no reason why not to support it. In contrast to many other FAC candidates, I found this one to be particularly interesting, informative and easy to read.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from SynergyStar: this article reads well, is engaging, and provided a comprehensive picture of this series to the uninitiated reader. Having been more familiar with other works involving Bruce Campbell, it was fascinating to read about this short-lived but worthwhile series.

• Very minor copy-editing suggestions:

• "follows title character" to "follows its title characer" or "its titular character" might sound better.
• "...leading man after watching Army of Darkness" needs a period at sentence's end.
• "Walter Goodman of "The New York Times"; "The Los Angeles Times printed a story"; "While "TV Guide"'s Jeff..." (all need italics)
• FCC can be written out per MOS:ABBR in brackets and linked, as in "Senator wants [Federal Communications Commission] to..."
• "...follow-up, The X-files." (capitalize)

• All the minor typos have been fixed. Thanks for spotting them! AstroCog (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Could a small identifying clause be added after the first instance of "Westerfield Club"? I searched after reading about it, assuming it was an actual building. Maybe "San Francisco's Westerfield Club, a members-only gathering place" etc.

First paragraph of the "Background" section, which is the first mention, already does this.AstroCog (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I saw that it says "controls from the boardrooms of the Westerfield Club." Just hoping for more detail...using Google found this: [15] "The Westerfield Club, like the Diogenes Club is privately owned and funded by a wealthy elite, yet it also has strong ties to the United States Secret Service and other Intelligence branches. It was created by..." Is this accurate? Perhaps a small summary clause could describe the Westerfield Club a bit more.

None of the article's sources (or any other reliable source I have read) goes into any significant detail about the Westerfield Club. Not even the show details anything about it more than what is said in the first paragraph. The site you found is some OR on a fan website trying to tie The Wild Wild West with Brisco, so I wouldn't use it as a source here. AstroCog (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As mentioned above, it would be great to have references on international broadcasts. Via Google News, a Canada airing: [16]

• Getting free-use photos for media productions is difficult, having done them myself before, it's a challenge to balance visual aids and FA requirements/MoS. While the fair-use photo of the Orb was correctly removed, perhaps given the importance that it has in the show's storyline, an external photo could be linked. Also, this Flickr page carries free-use photos of a "Denver Street" Western backlot, which is said to previously be the locale of "Laramie Street". Could it be a relevant photo?

I've searched in vain for a free-use image of Laramie Street. The "Denver Street" photo can't be the same location, since it's on the Universal Lot. Laramie was on the Warner Bros. Lot.

OK, thanks for checking.

• The movie ranch article could be linked to; it claims that Red Hills Ranch was a Brisco filming location. Do any of the refs confirm that?

It's possible that Red Hills was used, but I don't recall it in any of the refs.AstroCog (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for checking; found a spot where movie ranch could be linked---"Warner Bros. ranch in Valencia."

• Versus this earlier article version, the episode chart has been condensed (writers and summaries removed, while actual order added). Is that for simplification or referencing purposes? That style chart has been used for other FA TV articles, such as Supernatural (season 2).

The current episode list is the style used for the FA TV article Firefly. The old one had poorly-written and crufty information. My plan is to take the reliable sources that exist for the episodes and make a separate "List of Brisco episodes..." article, which would justify keeping the current minimalist table.AstroCog (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, that makes perfect sense. Right now clicking on the infobox's "list of episodes" links to that section, but if a separate article is planned, that would be great.

• The article reads well chronologically. The final Reception (pilot/broadcast/violence), Broadcast (cancellation), Home media sections include review quotes. Maybe the post-pilot broadcast, cancellation/legacy quotes could be grouped together, but that's a judgment call.

Overall, the article was a pleasure to read. Thank you for your diligent efforts on it! Pending a response to my comments, I will be more than happy to support this article for FA. SynergyStar (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi SynergyStar, thanks for the comments and the kind words. I'm traveling for business for the next 5 days, but I'll try to eke out some time to address your concerns. I did respond to a couple things above. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, you've already addressed/explained many of my points. Thanks for your diligence! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope the latest edits help out.AstroCog (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. The copy-edits look good. Not to belabor the point, but FCC should be linked and written out per MOS:ABBR to better inform readers, and it would be good to add some international broadcast referencing, such as the above provided ref or a better one. Such a ref could be placed as a brief blurb in the Broadcast history prose section (e.g. "The show also aired in Canada,...). This would help strengthen the article with regards to the FA comprehensiveness criterion...and particularly since there are Canadian reviews of the show, some info on its airing there seems only natural (the reviews may have also mentioned airtimes and channels).

Using the Firefly (TV series) article as a model is a great idea; reviewing that article provides some further suggestions:

• A cast section with main and recurring characters, similar to Firefly_(TV_series)#Cast. The current "Cast" section should then be a subsection under "Production", and renamed "Casting". After all, it discusses the audition and character development process, which is part of the production effort. The Firefly-style "Cast" section (this type of list is found in other GA/FA TV and film articles) would then have brief list-style blurbs on Brisco Jr., Bly, Socrates, Lord Bowler, etc.

• The organization of the review quotes in the Firefly article shows tighter focus: all such quotes are located in the "Reception" section (none in "Broadcast", "Home media"). Plus the Firefly article's review section evenly covers the entire show, rather than being weighted towards reviews of the pilot. I think the different format and use of quotes in the Brisco "Home media" section is fine, but would like to see improved flow and organization of the "Reception"/"Broadcast" area. Using the Firefly template, I've taken the liberty of formulating a suggestion which adjusts the last paragraph of the "Pilot" reception section, and moves items below (changes underlined versus the current "Reception" section):

• Emphasize that reviews are about the pilot in the "pilot" last paragraph
• WSJ + later Toronto Star quote moved out of "pilot" section
• Adjust sentence starting off "Broadcast run" section to explain TV Guide emphasis
• WSJ / Toronto Star / Spin quotes combined in a "Broadcast run" section paragraph
• Quotes towards cancellation kept together

Similarly, for the bifurcated "Broadcast" history section, the following suggestions:

• The following introductory sentences from "Cancellation" should be moved above: "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., opened its season with strong ratings. Fox Entertainment chief Sandy Grushaw openly touted Brisco and its star Bruce Campbell. The network fully expected the show to be its breakout hit of the year... These sentences can fit above the chart, since they discuss the beginning of the show's broadcast history. It also seems repetitive to have the initial ratings mentioned both above and below the chart in the same section.

• The last paragraph of the "Cancellation" section is more of a "Legacy" section than addressing its cancellation directly. Rather, it is a "Retrospective" of the series as a whole after much time has passed. Most of the material would better fit in a "Reception" subsection rather like how the Firefly places post-cancellation reviews there.

These comments are just my 2 cents, so please feel free to do with them as you wish. I'd like to support this article fully, and so hope that these suggestions, which elaborate upon my earlier comments, can be taken into consideration. Again, I commend the diligent effort that has made this article already quite excellent, and hope it can reach FA soon. As a note, I will be quite busy after tomorrow, so if my comments cannot be addressed in the next few days, I may not be able to comment or respond any further. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for the additional feedback. Augh! I keep forgetting about international broadcasts. I'll get that up. I'll also try to address your other concerns by the end of the day or tomorrow, so you'll have time to review them. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made the structural changes you suggested, including rearranging content from the "Cancellation" section into the "Reception" section. I think it reads better that way now. Thanks! I added a sentence about the show being broadcast in Canada, though I'm not sure saying what channel it was broadcast on is OK (two sources I read said Channel 29). Concerning the cast list, I originally had a Firefly-style list, but FAC reviewers (see above) objected to it and suggested the format currently in the article. I like the new format, which feels less crufty, but like you said, it's a stylistic choice. Otherwise, how does the article look? AstroCog (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great job!!! You did even better by combining the review quotes from the "Home media" section into the aptly-titled "Post-cancellation" section. Thanks for the details on the "Cast" section, that's fine. Glad to see the quotes combined together and organized in "Reception", it now gives a broader picture of the critical reaction to the series as a whole. Two minor bits...

• Category:Channel_29_TV_stations_in_Canada; "Channel 29" probably is different by Canadian province or city; looking at the wiki category, and given that the source is the Toronto Star, I'd guess that it is CIII-DT. The sentence could be more specific as in "The series was aired in Canada, including on Global Toronto (channel 29)."
• Just to reiterate (per MoS), that FCC is an acronym that can be written out and linked.

Thanks for bearing with these suggestions! Looks almost done from my point of view. SynergyStar (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Forgot about the FCC thing. I changed it. My only qualm with it is that "FCC" is in the quote. MOS:ABBR says "The abbreviation style used in quotations from written sources should always be written exactly as in the original source, unless it is a Wikipedia-made translation." So I'm not sure how to solve the problem, other than revert to the original abbreviation, but wikilink it within the quote. AstroCog (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah yes, thanks for noting that. Here's a workaround: "The Los Angeles Times printed a story about Senator Dorgan's efforts to elicit a response from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the title "Fox Tops Tally of Violence on Major TV Networks Media: Study of a week of prime-time shows also lists 'Brisco County' as bloodiest series. Senator wants FCC to issue report card, name sponsors." That should satisfy preserving the original quote, plus writing out the abbreviation. SynergyStar (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Good suggestion. Done. AstroCog (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just a nitpick, the italics goes after Times. You had it correct before adding my FCC suggestion... SynergyStar (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed!

Support. Thank you for your diligent follow-ups to my comments, and those of earlier reviewers. The changes made and justifications provided, have addressed my concerns. As before, the article is an interesting read and piqued my interest in a show I previously knew little about. Thanks also for expediting your edits in the final round of updates! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - 3 photos illustrate this article.

• Title card is fair-use and low-res as permitted.
• 2 fair-use photos of individuals involved; 1 is CC-by-2.0; other is CC-by-3.0, appears to be fine (one is author uploaded, other has been reviewed for licensing and passed).
• File:Bruce Campbell at FSC crop.jpg is uncategorized, please add Category:Bruce Campbell.

Image review appears satisfactory. Good job on adding the optional but helpful alt text. SynergyStar (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has anyone spotchecked this article's sources? Ucucha (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spotchecks done

This is my first attempt at spotchecking an article's sources. Although I don't have access to everything used, I checked most of the external links, and it looks good to me. No issues with copyright violations or sources not matching what is present in the article, etc. (On a sidenote, I also fixed the spaces per the MOS, as I noticed spaced em dashes were used throughout, which goes against WP:DASH.) María (yllosubmarine) 14:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Ucucha (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article quotes someone as saying "I can't imagine Brisco having ever existing without him." Is that the correct quote? If so, it should be indicated with "sic". Also, check for double periods in the references. Ucucha (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I don't understand. Indicate [sic] because it's incorrect grammar? AstroCog (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Ucucha (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got that fixed, along with double periods and some page number errors. Those were from recently added refs and result from a bug in the reference generator I use. I need to let the developer of that tool know about that... AstroCog (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. The double period thing is an annoying and hard to avoid bug in the citation templates. Ucucha (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes:

• WP:SEASON in the lead ("It ran for 27 episodes on the Fox network starting in the Fall 1993 season".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your edit to fix this looks good. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.