|Bulldog Drummond has been listed as a Language and literature good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: October 29, 2013. ( ).
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Isn't the defence of 'the Black Gang' a little strident? Should that be reworded? 126.96.36.199 10:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Badly organised and badly written
This article is a bit of a mess. For one thing, the section "Literary Significance and Criticism" isn't about that at all, but about the racism in the Bulldog Drummmond stories. The racism should be mentioned because it's conspicuous and offensive today in a way that it wasn't so much to readers back then, but the stuff in it should be moved elsewhere. Also, there are no inline citations for the quotes. Whoever put them there should provide them. I will reorganise the article a bit. Lexo (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't claim to have read all of the Bulldog Drummond books (yet!), but the same three or four racist references leads me to beleive that those are the ONLY racist passages in the books. I'd hardly call four sentences in several hundred thousand "conspicous". 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- One thing that could help immediately is explaining whether "Sapper" is McNelle or Drummond, with a citation, of course. Apparently NcNelle identified strongly with his character, and the article, and the quotes used, call both of them "Sapper." 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Eric
Although 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.
"Despite the outdated images presented in the original books, Bulldog Drummond still appears as a popular culture reference.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'":"
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)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Bulldog Drummond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- 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
- "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.
- "also characterised him as a mass-market thriller writer" -- is this McNeile? or his Sapper penname specifically?
- "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)
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)
|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the 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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.|
|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 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 images:|
|6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.|
|6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.||Very nice collection of images.|
|7. Overall assessment.||Pass as GA|
William 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)