Wikipedia:Peer review/The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr./archive2

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've been working on this article for nearly a year now and would like any suggestions to help improve it. A peer review earlier this year helped quite a bit, and the article has undergone some expansion and other significant changes since then. I think it is at at least GA status (pending review), but I would like suggestions that could help it meet FA status.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, AstroCog (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments This is good, and I think that with a few minor changes it would have little trouble making the grade at GAN. It's close to FA quality, in my opinion. However, I doubt that so many fair-use images would pass scrutiny there, and the nit-picky things I mention below need to be addressed. Your article has made me want to see the show, which I knew nothing about before today.

Synopsis
 * "Poole's nebbish personality initially clashes with Brisco's laid-back demeanor... " - Readers might have trouble with "nebbish". Would something else be more clear?


 * Changed "nebbish" to "timid".AstroCog (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Bowler begins bitter over the elder County's success and acts as a rival to Brisco." - Would "Bowler is initially bitter over the elder County's success and acts as a rival to Brisco" be better?


 * Made the suggested change.AstroCog (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * " "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." - Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked since the link was not part of the original. The two links inside this quotation should be removed.


 * Fixed this in the synopsis. These links were added in good faith by a copy editor to the article. I didn't know about the style guideline here, so I left them in initially.AstroCog (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Signature show elements
 * The four links inside the Campbell quotations should be unlinked.


 * Fixed. AstroCog (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the tag line at the bottom of the box quote, Starlog should be in italics.
 * Fixed. AstroCog (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Casting
 * "Carry seeing great potential in the character of Bowler." - Should "seeing" be "saw"?


 * Fixed. Wow, don't know how I missed this one. Ironically, I think it may have been something "lost in the translation" during the most recent copy edit.AstroCog (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unlink "one-liner" in the Carry quotation.


 * Unlink the link in the Clemenson quote.


 * Unlink the links in the Rutherford quote.


 * Fixed all the links.AstroCog (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Music
 * "is now known to television viewers beyond the show itself: in the mid-1990s, NBC hired Edelman to provide music for their sports coverage, including NFL games and the Olympics." - I would use a semicolon here rather than a colon, and I would use "it" for NBC rather than "their". I'd change the linked NFL to National Football League (NFL) on first use in the article. Ditto for NBC.


 * Fixed.AstroCog (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Pilot episode
 * "Initial critical reaction to pilot was positive" - Missing word? Maybe "to the pilot"?


 * thought that the pilot's "intelligent, satiral asides" were a "delight" - I don't think "satiral" is a word. Should it be "satirical"?


 * "Walter Goodman of The New York Times found the supporting characters lacking... " - Lacking what? I think you either need to say something like "weak" or "lacking depth".


 * Fixed each of these.AstroCog (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

References
 * Citation 45 lists "The New York Times: pp. D6", but this seems to be a single page rather than multiple pages. Use p. for a single page and pp. for more than one page. Citation 48 seems to have the same problem, and there are others.


 * Should Citation 54 include the publisher? Or is DVD Extra the publisher? Not sure. What about a date of publication? Better double-check any similar citations.


 * Citation 62 and others like it look odd to me. I think the correct form is "Christian Science Monitor, "Weekend", p. 11. Not quite sure, though.


 * Citation 6 has "Aired August 27, 1993". To keep the date formatting consistent, it should be "1993-08-27".


 * I've fixed the page number problem, which seemed to have been a bug in the reference generator I used. Other citations fixed, including the DVD commentaries and extras. I was originally following the format seen in the reference section of Featured Article Firefly (TV series), but frankly, I always thought it didn't look good. Glad to have it fixed now.AstroCog (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Images
 * You'll have a hard time convincing reviewers at FAC that four non-free images are necessary for readers to understand the text. WP:NFCC has the guidelines. If you need to eliminate some, I'd lose the anachronistic characters first and the orb second.


 * Good point. For good measure, I took out the anachronistic tech picture. Working on getting some free pictures to use, but I'll leave the rest in for now. AstroCog (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)