Talk:Bulldog Drummond/GA1

GA Review

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

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)

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

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