Talk:The Defence of Duffer's Drift

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The Defence of Duffer's Drift 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: June 15, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / Historiography / African / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Military historiography task force
	African military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

BF

BF of course, stands for "bloody fool". I would imagine this is deliberate. Any citation would be nice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Author in infobox

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for looking into this article! It could definitely use some work & expansion. That said... and this is quite a minor point, to be clear... was this book ever published with a listed author as "Backsight Forethought?" Because if not, it really shouldn't show up in the author field. First person narratives are exceedingly common in literature, but that's not what the author field is for. David Copperfield is credited to Charles Dickens, not "Charles Dickens, writing as David Copperfield (the character)". The edition of this book I read made very clear that Dunlop was the author and Forethought is the character in the book, not that Dunlop wrote under the name "Backsight Forethought," but maybe other editions are not as clear? SnowFire (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The byline on the title page of my 1907 copy is 'By "BACKSIGHT FORETHOUGHT."', and that's the signature on the Preface also; Swinton's name doesn't appear anywhere in the early editions. I might put an image of it on the page when I have time to scan it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Defence of Duffer's Drift/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Spell check performed
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Spot checks done - no issues. Made some minor changes to the referencing. Revert if you disagree.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images are appropriately licensed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
What a great little article. No issues.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.