Wikipedia:Peer review/Moonraker (novel)/archive1

Moonraker (novel)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Moonraker is the fourth third in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories. It was one of Fleming's more personal novels and is set in two places he loved: the clubland of London and the countryside of Kent. It stands out from his other works for being the only Bond novel solely based in England, and the only one where Bond doesn't get the girl at the end. This has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous two Bond novels, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. A visit to FAC is the post-PR aim. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahem, third in the series, no...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks Ian! – SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Present or past tense
  • Your descriptions of the plot vary: in the lead "the latter was caught cheating" but the main text this is in the present tense. Likewise Drax's narration to Bond starts off in the present ("Drax tells Bond that") but after – naturally – going into the past tense for Drax's wartime doings, we stay in the past tense when we return to the current narrative: "He explained that he now meant … He also planned to play".
• Lead
  • "third novel by British author Ian Fleming" – conspicuous false title here. Suggest: "… third novel by the British author Ian Fleming featuring his fictional British…" There's another false title in the second para, for Drax.
• Plot
  • "deck of stacked cards" – does Fleming use the American "deck" rather than the British "pack"?
  • I'm a bit fogged about what is on the front of the missile that kills Drax and co. You say "supposedly un-armed" (the OED doesn't hyphenate that, by the way), implying that it actually is armed. But not with a nuclear warhead, presumably? Or is it unarmed and its mere velocity does for the submarine?
    • Tim riley, we mention that the nuclear warhead is on the missile at the end of the previous para. Any suggestions how to make it clearer around the "supposedly unarmed" bit, without repeating the info? - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see. Got it now, I think. Drax is pretending to the world that it will be an unarmed test firing but it is actually to be an armed firing on London, which Bond and Brand manoeuvre into being an armed firing into the English Channel. Is that correct, and is it by accident or design that the missile lands on the Russian sub? If I have it correctly, changing "this first (supposedly unarmed) test" with just "the" would do the trick. I don't think you need mention the supposed test firing aspect at all. But perhaps I've still not got a handle on the plot. I'm not proud: call me a daft old bugger as applicable. Tim riley talk 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
        • You have it perfectly - it was my poor description that was to blame. Now tweaked as you advise. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "re-target" and "de-briefing" – the OED doesn't hyphenate them either.
• Style
  • There's more uncertainty about tenses here: "Benson felt" but "Black sees"
• Background
  • "to discuss the traits of megalomaniacs, and came away with information on diastema" – this seems rather a non-sequitur: one is left wondering what a dental condition has got to do with a mental one.
  • Is the author's state of health (third para) relevant?
  • There is an article on Wren Howard you can link to if you want to.
• Plot inspirations
  • Image – for my money File:Boodle's.JPG is a stronger image than the present one. What think you?
• Characters
  • "the two writers Kingsley Amis and Benson" – I think you can safely lose the "two"
• Reception
  • "Noël Coward" – far be it from me to discourage links to that excellent article, but we've already had a link to it in Background.
  • "On the down side, however" – is there a hint of WP:EDITORIAL here? I think the sentence would work perfectly well without these five words.
  • "utterly disgraceful – and highly enjoyable" – I think according to the MoS you can and probably should change the spaced en-dash into an unspaced em-dash to match the form elsewhere in the article.
• Adaptations
  • "novelization based upon a film; entitled James Bond and Moonraker" – the semicolon seems odd, and leaves the last bit of the sentence without a main verb. Something like "this was" after the semicolon would do the trick. (As a purely personal preference, I'd make "upon" just "on".)
• Notes
  • The CPI is linked twice.

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article, and I think others will too. Please let me know when you go to FAC. – Tim riley talk 09:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir! Thank you kindly - I shall work on these today. Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

Tim may have picked up some of these:

Lead

• Personally I dislike the participle in the first line, and would prefer "...to feature his fictional British Secret Service..." etc. For you to decide, however.
• The cover design was "based on Fleming's own concept", but neither here nor in the body of the article do you say what this concept was.
• Was the V-2 rocket really one of the fears of the 1950s? The last one went off long before then. There was a more general fears of rocket attacks.

Plot

• "...the Moonraker was able to use more powerful fuels..." – I think perhaps "these" rather than "more".
• "Drax takes Brand to London where she discovers the truth about the Moonraker by comparing her own launch trajectory figures with those in a notebook picked from Drax's pocket, but she is caught by Krebs." I think the last bit properly belongs to the next sentence, thus: "She is captured by Krebs, and finds herself captive in a secret radio homing station..." etc
• "While she is being returned to Kent by Drax..." Not all readers will understand "Kent". Also, in what sense was she being "returned"? Perhaps "taken back to"?
• Who captures Bond?
• Fifth para, first line: close repetition of "unit"

Background

• "Dr E.B. Strauss" – I've come across him before {see Pinfold article). I think "Eric Strauss" would be more MOS.
• The third, fourth and fifth paragraphs are really "Writing history" rather than background. You should either divide, and create a separate section, or rename the section "Background and writing history"

Plot inspirations

• I'm glad you managed to mention old Reggie Drax, all-time winner of the Silly Names championship (English division). It is said that when he was introduced to Stalin as head of the British mission to Moscow in August 1939, old Joe virtually choked himself laughing.
• "The Scotland Yard superintendent in the book, Ronnie Vallance, was named after Sir Ronald Howe, the assistant commissioner at the Yard, and Vallance Lodge, Fleming's accountants". I'd reword this slightly: "The name of the Scotland Yard superintendent, Ronnie Vallance, was made up from that of Sir Ronald Howe, the actual assistant commissioner at the Yard, and Vallance Lodge & Co, Fleming's accountants".

Characters

• "a deeper and more introspective book..." – deeper and more introspective than what? Fleming's earlier novels, presumably, but say so.
• "a sourness to" → "a sourness in"
• post-war requires a hyphen I believe
• The sentence beginning: "According to The Times journalist and historian Ben Macintyre..." needs attention. One clause too many, I think. Suggest split after "reliability", get rid of "while".
• "The cultural historians Janet Woollacott and Tony Bennett write that the perceived reserve shown by Brand to Bond was not down to frigidity, but to her engagement to another policeman". So, Bond was a "policeman"? That dents his image somewhat. In the plot summary you say she was engaged to another Special Branch officer, which certaily sounds better. You could use "agent" here. Whether it needs the insight of cultural historians to perceive that a womwn's loyalty to her fiancé does not signify frigidity is another matter.

Style

• "a technique closer to the detective, as opposed to thriller, genre." A little clumsy; perhaps "...a technique closer to the detective story than to the thriller genre."
• "placing clues to the plot line placed throughout the story" – something wrong there.
• I can't remember what MOS says, but I rather think that using "i.e" in prose is discouraged (as it should be)
• ndashes used here, and mdashes elsewhere

Themes

• "The novel placed England—and particularly London and Kent—in the front line of the cold war, and the threat to the location further emphasises its importance in Fleming's view". "Places" rather than "placed". And I don't think "in Fleming's view" is necessary.
• Is Sternberg's nationality relevant?

Publication and reception

• As mentioned earlier, "following the suggestions of Fleming" needs amplifying
• You need to mention who the publishers were of the original hardbacks (UK and US) (Uk publisher is in the infobox, but whoever reads those?)
• "the US paperback was published in the US" – one US too many: "...the US paperback version was published by Permabooks under the title Too Hot to Handle?
• Colon or some such needed after "that point", to mark the following quote
• "going on to say that" is somewhat verbose. Possibly, "and considered that" or something similar? The phrase occurs more than once in the Reception section.
• Link Maurice Richardson
• Short quotations that form a complete sentence, like "do not miss this", look wrong unless headed by a capital.
• "Astonish me!" is direct speech within a quotation, and should therefore have single quotation marks
• "John Metcalf for The Spectator thought that "It is utterly disgraceful..." May I suggest: "John Metcalf for The Spectator thought the book "utterly disgraceful..."
• Would John Metcalf be this person?
• "was mixed in his review" – not sure about that phrasing. Perhaps "was equivocal, saying..."?

Adaptations

• "The actor John Payne unsuccessfully attempted ... but nothing came of the attempt". Second clause rdundant
• Delete "eventually" in next line
• "was originally not one of" → "was not originally one of", or better still, delete originally.
• "were found to be similar to" → "were similar to"
• Last line: "later reported at" → "later reported that" – but I don't think "reported" is the right word here.

So there we go. Mainly nitpicks in a highly infornative article. I really must read some of this bugger Fleming some time. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Brian. Hugely appreciated as always. I'll work through these in the next day or so. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto comments

• The Scotland Yard superintendent, Ronnie Vallance, made up from that of Sir Ronald Howe, the actual assistant commissioner at the Yard -- According to the article, the book (and the characters) was written before 1953. Howe wasn't knighted until 1955. Should we be using "Sir", two years before his knighthood?

  No we shouldn't - good spot! - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• [and] his physical presence fills Moonraker.[40][38] -- ref order

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• "characterization" (AmEng) → characterisation (BrEng)

• It's in a direct quote, so my hands are tied on this one - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Doh, yes of course, I didn't see that! Cassianto^Talk 09:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few to be getting on with, more later today. Cassianto^Talk 00:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Cass - I look forward to the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The actor John Payne attempted to take up the option on the film rights to the book in 1955, but nothing came of the attempt. The Rank Organisation also took up an option to make a film..." -- take up the option / took up an option are used quite close together, thus giving it a repetitive feel.
• Staying with repetition, this also happens with the word "considered" quite a bit when we are hearing someone's opinion on something. For instance, earlier in the second from last para of the "Background and writing history" section this occurs: "Fleming considered a number of titles for the story; his first choice had been The Moonraker, until Noël Coward reminded him of a novel of the same name by F. Tennyson Jesse. Fleming then considered..." Now, although not immediately after, it's close enough to cause Déjà vu somewhat. I don't think you use it enough to warrant a blitz, but I really don't think we could afford to use anymore.

That's it. I thoroughly enjoyed this article and shall now read the book (which I have somewhere in the loft). Please let me know when Moonraker has landed at FAC. --Cassianto^Talk 09:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Tweaks all made: many thanks for your thoughts, and I hope to be at FAC in a couple of weeks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

PR all closed. Many thanks to all who participated with some excellent thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)