Support – I took part in the peer review, and my few queries were dealt with there. I haven't dealt much with Featured Lists, and so I carefully checked the FL criteria before commenting. This article seems to me to meet all the criteria and I can't think what anyone who reads it might wish to find that isn't there, nor is there anything in the article that shouldn't be. It is a most entertaining read into the bargain. Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Tim, Many thanks for your comments at PR and your support here: your suggestions have tightened this up very nicely! Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Support – I to was at the peer review and thoroughly enjoyed my time there. The article is engaging, well written and a comprehensive account of its subject. All of my comments were embraced and met with satisfactory responses. A credit to the nominator indeed! -- CassiantoTalk 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Cass, for your support and PR input. Both are much appreciated and—as with Tim, above—your thoughts have really helped improve this article. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Support: I never normally review at FLC as lists are far beyond my technical abilities, but I commented on this one at PR and can't resist anything to do with Sir Harry. The prose is top-notch, and this article is very comprehensive. All my comments at the PR were addressed. In the interests of strict accuracy and fairness, I can only really comments on 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the FL criteria. (The other two criteria are the reasons I don't do lists! I leave them to those with more ability...) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Sarastro1, Many thanks for your suggestions at PR, and for your support here: both are very much appreciated. And I'm glad there is finally a Flashman article in good order: I just have to work on a couple of the others now! - SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
"1890 & 1891" why not a range like all the other year ranges?
It's how the book presents it, as it is a the story falls into two parts (although written as one): the events of the scandal in 1890 and the subsequent court case in 1891. I can follow the same format as the others, if you'd prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks as always RM. I'll look over the context and lead and see what I can do there too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Support I had my say at the peer review. Limited to prose and comprehensiveness, if you correct the problem with "often taking actions that cause or affect subsequently infamous actions," too much action!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Wehwalt for your oversight at PR and here. I've tweaked the above to reduce the action a little: one is now an event. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Very nice, but there is quite a lot of prose in this "list", and the table format of the publication sequence does not seem to add very much: indeed, the length of the (very good) notes means that there is quite a lot of space in the first four columns. The table could be easily turned into continuous prose, with one paragraph per book. Would WP:FAC be more appropriate? The nearest comparable featured lists - List of James Bond novels and short stories and List of Maya Angelou works are both a lot more "listy". I am struggling to find a comparable featured article - perhaps The Lucy poems. Or has this been discussed elsewhere already? -- Ferma (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ferma, It's not been discussed anywhere else really (although possibly very obliquely). I was the one who first put together the push to update what was an article called "James Bond novels", to get it to GA status. It's now changed to the list article (and an FL one) List of James Bond novels and short stories. It was done because it was more a list - a breakdown of books and summaries, together with a brief background summary. It's pretty close to what we have here in many respects (deliberately so, as I copied the layout and format when I wrote this one). I went through the list/article debate in my mind a couple of times, but this still felt more like a list than an article, with no requirement at FL, or anywhere else I could find, that meant it should be categorised as an article. I'd be happier with it staying as a list, as that's what I feel it is closer to, but I am very open to hearing what others would have to say on this point... - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a fair point that Ferma makes, but it is also worth noting that featured lists have moved on significantly since the days of "intro + table" which used to define what a list article was. Ordinarily, if you slapped an article which was even 50% prose and 50% list at FAC, it'd be "send it down" or optimistically "send it to FLC". When we collate a bunch of related articles together in a big list/table and summarise them, and provide a lovely, articulate lead, this is a featured list candidate. There has been debate over what a list is versus an article, but we tend to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Right now, this list is being assessed against WP:WIAFL, if it evolved into something else in the future, well that's a future discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I am asking whether the article covers a topic that lends itself to list format. Anyway, I have made some tweaks. -- Ferma (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments Enjoyable read. Looks very good in all, I just have some comments:
The word "Cad" isn't used at all in Rake (character) article – might be worth linking to the associated Wiktionary page instead, i.e. [[wiktionary:cad|cad]].
I'd not appreciated the slight difference between the two terms, so I've added the term, rather than replacing. Flashman is now a "cowardly British soldier, rake and cad". - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
There are a couple of instances where the text jumps between two different tenses in the same sentence; they seem a little jarring to me. Here's what I mean:
"he estimated that he has slept" – "he estimates that he has slept", perhaps?
"Flashman is a compulsive womaniser who had bedded 480 women"
"Flashman also appears in another book ... when he was 88"
I don't think the categories about the character are entirely relevant here (i.e. Characters in British novels, Fictional characters introduced in 1969 and Literary characters), since this article is obviously more about the literary series than Flashman himself.
Good point: now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
May be just a personal preference, but I think it might be worth centring the Ref. columns in the two tables – I just think it looks a little neater.
Many thanks, as always, for your thoughts. I've I've missed anything, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Should "The Flashman Papers" be italicised or not? It is at one point, but not at another. The Flashman article also italicises it in some places but not others.
Tricky one, but as the primary source doesn't, I'll follow that. At least it is consistent the way it is. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In that case the link in the navbox needs changing too.
Good spot! Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Comprehensiveness seems good; the only question I found myself wondering as I read was whether there was any response from, say, the estate of Tom Hughes over the use of some of his characters in this way. Was there? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought that too and ran searches to check, but nothing came up in the media that I could see. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Just given this page another quick once-over and, if we're all satisfied that it's a list rather than an article, then I feel that it meets the FL criteria. One more minor note I would make is that, since Category:Flashman novels is a subcategory of Category:British novels, then there's no need to include the latter on this page. All in all, good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks ATD: I've removed the British novels category, as suggested. I can see the arguments for this as an article, but I still feel that this does fit within the FL arena, rather than going down the FA route: the main meat of the page is a list, after all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.