Wikipedia:Peer review/The Flashman Papers/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Flashman Papers[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Flashman Papers are a series of twelve historical fiction books, written by George MacDonald Fraser and centred on Harry Paget Flashman, a coward, rake, adulterer, drunk, liar and cheat—and that's what he says about himself! The series is a fantastic romp through the military hotspots of the 19th century in the company of one of the most colourful characters in literature. An FLC beckons once the various prose issues have been ironed out, so any assistance in that direction would be much appreciated. SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Very nicely done. Obviously you know the books well, as evidenced also by the wear on the spines of the exhibit.

Lede
  • While Flashman self-describes as a coward, his reaction to an attack is to fight back. Some mention of this, and of his prowess in arms, would be worthwhile both in lede and body (in the Flashman section, I dare say)
  • The mention of his sexual exploits is very close to the mention of Queen Victoria, I would either separate or make it clear he did not have sex with her.
  • Removed Victoria, even tho for their sexual exploits they had Lincoln between them... (And that's now a horrible image I'm struggling to remove from my mind) - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Context
  • Can nothing be said about the enjoyable footnotes which end each Flashman book? In the case of some of the worse ones, they are more entertaining than the book.
Publication
  • Would it be possible to have a brief mention, possibly within parentheses, of the dates when each took place? I see them below this, but I think it would aid the reader.
  • On Royal Flash, you should probably clarify that Gustaf does not actually have a social disease, but is imprisoned by Rudi et al.
  • I think considering he's one of the best characters original to Fraser, you should say a bit more about John Charity Spring.
  • A little more colur added to his profile - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is identified as an abolitionist" This reads oddly as Flashman is not an abolitionist. He doesn't care one way or the other.
  • "subsequently killed. Flashman is subsequently involved " Ahem.
  • I've tried to shoehorn a third subsequently in there, but subsequently realised it looked odd. I have subsequently removed one, leaving only one subsequently... - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably clarify whether Ignatiev is an army or navy captain. Lower case.
  • Done both. An interesting character in his own right! - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Great Game: Is it worth adding a sentence at the end that Flashy gets the VC and word of the publication of Tom Brown's Schooldays?
  • It should be mentioned, I think, that Part 1 of Redskins immediately follows the end of Freedom
  • Yes, it's not obvious from this sequence: now included. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kuklos also want Flashman". There should probably be a "The" starting this sentence.
Other references
  • Flashman's role in Mr American is considerably more than a cameo.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit that it's been a while since I read it, but ordered a copy and will have a spin through and edit before I go to FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt, these are all great pointers and I'll work my way through all these shortly. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro: I can't resist commenting on this one, damn your eyes! And I hope this is the beginning of a long series of articles on Flashman; if so, please keep me informed! Really good article overall, well done.

  • I'd like to (much as a few of us did with the Bond novels, character, films etc) but whereas there are a few hundred books that look at various aspects of Bond—ranging from academic explorations of the subject to things only just above fan scribblings (where we are more accurate and neutral!)—there is very, very little that looks at Flashman in the same way, which leaves us with the reviews of books and the primary sources themselves. I'll probably update the character article at Harry Paget Flashman, but I may struggle to go too much further than that, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flashman was created by journalist, author and screenwriter George MacDonald Fraser": Seems to be a stretch as Hughes arguably created the character and Fraser … expanded upon it.
  • Arguably is the key word there as I think it's something of a moot point. When I wrote the lead, I worked that sentence several times and still wasn't happy where it ended up! I've flipped it the other way now. Does that look OK? - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he is a coward who tries to run away from any danger, he is involved in a number of notable military episodes from the 19th century and—often taking actions that cause subsequently infamous actions, such as his flatulence causing the Charge of the Light Brigade Despite his cowardice and his attempts to flee, he becomes a decorated war hero and rises to the rank of brigadier-general": Something wrong here: a long sentence, a misplaced capital and one half of a pair of dashes!
  • A missing full stop didn't help either! Tweaked the punctuation a little for clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flashman either had sex with them, or tried to have sex with them": Perhaps "either had, or tried to have, sex with them", but my commas seem awry. And is "sex" encyclopaedic enough? (I almost feel that a suitable phrase from the books should be used here, but perhaps not…)
  • LOL—too much fun to be had in finding the right term from the books to drop in there! WP:EUPHEMISM says that "have sex" is the neutral version to use, even though I'd prefer to use "bulled her round the room until she hollered uncle"! I've tweaked the more strait-laced version as you suggest. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In giving the "explanation" of the books' "discovery", is it worth saying that they were found in Ashby? I always liked that touch.
  • "Fraser would research each novel at Trinity College, Dublin": Perhaps just "Fraser researched…"
  • Surely Royal Flash should mention Lola Montez?
  • Is it worth adding something on the critical reception? I'm not too sure how these articles work. Sarastro1 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly allowable to cover that aspect, I'm struggling to find anything in the sources that would cover that angle appropriately, but there must be something somewhere, so I'll dig a little further. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have access to the archives of The Times, The Guardian, The Observer and The Times Literary Supplement. Let me know if you want me to do some digging for reviews. Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for the offer Tim: I will certainly take you up on that offer when I start doing the Flashman character article. I've dropped in a line here about the reception in general, which should cover the summary nature of the book series. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two penn'orth from Tim Riley
  • Introduction
    • "a series of novels and short stories, first published in 1969" – not all of them published in 1969. Perhaps "the first of which was published…"
      • Indeed: now tweaked accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Flashman's part in the stories tends to either be fictional, or he assumes the role of real but unidentified individuals" – I'm not quite clear what this means
      • Tweaked. Does this now read OK? I know what I want to say, but I'm still not sure I say it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his flatulence causing the charge of the Light Brigade" – it is positively inhuman to write this without explaining how. A footnote would do, but PLEASE! Tangentially, I think linking to flatulence as you do is a calculated and mischievous piece of WP:OVERLINK. Mind you, I couldn't help laughing.
      • I've tweaked it slightly (my memory was slightly faulty) and added a footnote to explain. It is one of the better passages in the series and still the only book I've ever read that has had me laughing uncontrollably on London Transport, much to the bemusement of the other passengers on the No 30 bus! - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The series consists" – earlier you use "series" as a plural noun ("the main series of stories finish in 1894") Either is fine, but I think you should be consistent. For what it's worth, my own inclination would be to use the singular form.
      • Singular use now spread throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he decided to leave journalism and take up writing" – I see what you mean, but writing is what journalists do, after a fashion. Perhaps "...and write novels"?
      • I'm tempted to say that's something of a moot point! However I've tweaked accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry" – is the definite article wanted here?
      • Not at all: it's been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flashman in the Great Game
    • "he meets with Lord Palmerston" – in British usage one meets with fate, death, difficulty etc, but not with people. One just meets them.
    • "an upcoming rebellion" – sounds as though it's been timetabled. Perhaps an incipient rebellion or some such?
      • removed altogether, now reading "rumours of a rebellion" - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flashman at the Charge
    • "Nicholas Pavlovich Ignatiev" – he was Nikolay in the previous book
  • Flashman's Lady
    • "escape the island" – escape from the island?
  • Flashman and the Angel of the Lord
    • "Joe Simmons, actually works for" – is there a "who" missing here?
  • Flashman and the Tiger
    • "He rides the maiden voyage of the Orient Express" – do trains make voyages? Not absolutely sure, but it feels subtly off-key to me.
      • I think I was getting carried away with the exuberance of it all. It's now just a journey. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. I extravagantly enjoyed reviewing this article. It reads lightly but there is plainly a lot of careful reading behind it. Bravo!– Tim riley (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many, many thanks, Tim. As always, your comments are invaluable. I've done a quick sweep and I'll get back to the others shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto

A very engaging little article, and brilliantly fluent with its prose. I have a few minor observations:

Context

  • "...spanning a period from 1839 to 1894." - "a period" is a little redundant when we go onto give the period in date form.
  • "...until Barrie & Jenkins published it in 1969. When the novel was published in the US in 1969..." - repetition of "1969"? Could we say "...until Barrie & Jenkins published it in 1969. When the novel was published in the US the same year..."
  • "Fraser was working as a journalist on The Glasgow Herald when he decided to leave journalism and take up writing novels. He would write in the evenings, after work, taking 90 hours in total to write the first novel, Flashman. -- This seems a little mixed up chronologically. He left journalism one minute, then returned to write after work. Did he have a second job? If not, I would say: "Fraser, who was working as a journalist on The Glasgow Herald, would write after work, and took 90 hours to write the first novel, Flashman. After this, he decided to leave journalism and take up writing novels full time." -- Failing that, I would just delete "after work".
  • I was wondering who was going to pick up on that deliberate error... well done! Now re-worked to fit the chronology better. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flashman

  • "...his grandfather made money from rum and slavery" - selling rum? making rum? smuggling rum? If he was involved in slavery, one would assume smuggling. Could this be clarified?
  • Not really! The source is a little vague, so instead I have quoted the relevant part of the passage. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a number of times by a number of countries." - a number of repetitive words, especially when we bare in mind that "a number" is used twice more in this paragraph.
  • It's probably there a number of times in a number of other places too. By taking out two of the numbers, I've reduced the number accordingly... I think! - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later. -- CassiantoTalk 11:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for your thoughts here: I look forward to anything else you pick up on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publication sequence

  • This all looks OK. I noticed a couple of trivial things:
Flashman at the Charge

OVERLINK of Russia

Flashman and the Redskins

"In 1875 Flashman returns to America with his wife, Elspeth. In Washington meets George Armstrong Custer..." -- Either there is a misplaced full stop after Elspeth or a few words are missing -- "In 1875 Flashman returns to America with his wife, Elspeth and meets George Armstrong Custer in Washington..." or In 1875 Flashman returns to America with his wife, Elspeth. Later, in Washington, he meets George Armstrong Custer..."

Notes
  • Is it usual for a citation to be given at the end of a paragraph? If so Note a's is missing.
  • It is: Mea culpa and it's now in place. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, everything else looks superb! Hearty congratulations! -- CassiantoTalk 14:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind and, as always, your excellent and insightful comments are very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR: Many thanks indeed to everyone who commented. I hope I have done justice to your thoughts and comments and I hope to see you at FLC! - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Flashman_Papers/archive1&oldid=1079638269"