Talk:Bulldog Drummond
 | Bulldog Drummond has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 29, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
unsupported statement
editAlthough the lede states an influence on the hard boiled noir-style detectives appearing in contemporary American fiction.; there is no example of this being the case in the main body of the article. Doc Savage is not a noir-style detective nor is he contemporary.Nitpyck (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Last book 1954 Coasters's song 1957.
edit"Despite the outdated images presented in the original books, Bulldog Drummond still appears as a popular culture reference. He is one of the heroes mentioned in The Coasters' 1957 hit "Searchin'":"
A song popular half a century ago doesn't match with the phrase "still appears as a pop cultural ref." Not sure how to re-write this. Nitpyck (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Infobox....
editAs per my edit summary, disputed infobox discussions really belong on the talk page. The MOS guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Article looks much better without the infobox. Why must we have this sort of thing on every TFA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you both - and apologies for not starting the talk page thread myself, but I've been tied up for much of the day at a family funeral and only checking intermittently on my mobile for vandalism on the McNeile TFA. As I managed to point out in the edit summary of one of my reverted edits, an infobox isn't obligatory by any means, and a discussion over the benefits and problems is the best way to sort this out for a long term and stable solution. - SchroCat (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Quite understand - families should always come first. 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Bulldog Drummond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey SchroCat, assuming you don't mind another from me so soon, I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all: very happy for this to have been picked up - and so soon after the relatively smooth pathway for the previous one too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this looks really good on first pass. You've included an impressive amount of academic sources here, and I really appreciate your rigorous sourcing even in places like the table of novels and their respective page lengths. It's well-written and to someone who's barely ever heard of Drummond (though I think I did come to the article years ago looking up references from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), seems to cover the main aspects; I'll check on this a bit more later.
A few suggestions:
- "The character was an amalgam of Fairlie, " -- This is the first mention of Fairlie in the body; he should get a clearer introduction
- Now tweaked (and linked). Let me know if you want a bit more added in there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Added to Drummond's physical attributes is his common sense" -- The description of Drummond switches from past to present tense here. It should probably all be in present tense, as a fictional character.
- Yep, now done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- "also characterised him as a mass-market thriller writer" -- is this McNeile? or his Sapper penname specifically?
- Also tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Controversy" is a very generic header-- what would you say to simply "ethnic slurs"? There doesn't seem to be any dispute that that's what we're talking about.
- What would you think about combining this with the "Reception" section? It would avoid having a criticism section per Wikipedia:Criticism, and avoid the problem of what to call the section altogether. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Moved into the reception section, as suggested. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- What would you think about combining this with the "Reception" section? It would avoid having a criticism section per Wikipedia:Criticism, and avoid the problem of what to call the section altogether. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Checklist to follow shortly... -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That should just about do it, but you missed one bullet point; I didn't do this myself because I didn't know your preference:
- The first Bulldog Drummond novel is stylized alternately as Bull-Dog and Bulldog; this should be made consistent. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dont worry - I didn't miss this! I need to do an edit when I get to my sources. The first novel was initially published as Bull-Dog, with subsequent editions as Bulldog. I'll add an efn to explain this, but need to get the source sorted properly first - hopefully in a couple of hours. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Now consistent in the main text, apart from the first mention (now with efn to explain) and the first mention in the novel list, which I think should show the original title. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
edit| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
| 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | See minor points above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. | |
| 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
| 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
| 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
| 2c. it contains no original research. | ||
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
| 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comparison to online sources and a skim of the Jaillant article suggests that major aspects are covered. | |
| 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
| 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
| 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
| 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
| 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very nice collection of images. | |
| 7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA | |
Recent edits
editWilliam Patrick Maynard, welcome to Wikipedia, and I am sorry that your recent edits were reverted. There was good reasoning behind that, and I'll try and run through some of the main reasons why these were not considered to be an improvement. Firstly what you added needs to be covered by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, even saying that a book if an "affectionate spoof" needs to have something that confirms that. Secondly, "affectionate spoof" is not encyclopaedic language, and we aim to be neutral and balanced in what we write. Thirdly, we aim to be as precise as possible, and things like "intermittently between the 1960s and the present" isn't as precise as the existing phrase. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The Strand Magazine
edit"After an unsuccessful one-off appearance as a policeman in The Strand Magazine..." Can anyone add the date of the issue concerned and the title of the piece ? RGCorris (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The source does not clarify unfortunately - just the same info that we have here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)