Talk:You Only Live Twice (novel)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk • contribs) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've given this -- probably my big fave among the Flemings -- plenty of time to be picked up by someone else so clearly it has my name on it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Great to have you back and looking forward to what I hope will be another smooth review. great book this one - and an article I thoroughly enjoyed researching the background for! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Been almost two weeks, is the review going to begin? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything in its turn -- it'd been sitting there a helluva long time before I put my name on it. ;-) Anyway, I've now cleared my desk of everything that was in front of this so will begin shortly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem as far as I am concerned Ian - I know your name on it means it'll be done right and the article will be of a high standard at the end. All good things come to those who wait... Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ps. This is the last of the Bond novels up for GA review - all the others are done, so you really are saving the best til last! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical

• Dabs and external link checks look okay (no action required).

Prose

• Performed my usual copyedit so pls check I haven't inadvertently altered any meaning.
• Pretty happy with how it reads now, however, A Sunday Times reviewer considered that Bond was "England's best export, a spice of adventure, a dash of patriotism, laced with sex, sadism and expense account know-how" – is this a general comment not directly related to YOLT or part of a review of the novel? When was it written? Just let me know ‘cos it may affect whether the "whilst" that follows is appropriate or not...

• This is a review shown in a secondary source (Henry Chancellor) and is not dated. However, all the other reviews that Chancellor uses I have found through the primary sources and are all part of the review process. The problem here is that The Sunday Times does not have an online archive to use and search through... Let me know how you'd like to deal with this and I'll ammend accordingly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• If we're not sure whether the "best export" quote is around the time of YOLT then I think we have to assume it was earlier so I've altered accordingly. On the other hand maybe it's better to just drop it and lead off with Connelly's equivocal comments -- I'm not too fussed, I think the wording can stand as it is but feel free to have a go at it yourself... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• It looks a little odd there - a general quote without any seeming connection to the novel - so I've taken it out altogether. Feel free to RV if you think it looks worse without it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Suits me, just checking you weren't wedded to it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Structure

• Follows the standard layout for a book article (no action required on the overall layout).
• However starting Characters and themes with Kissy seems a bit odd to me. I feel it'd better to begin with Bond, the "central character" as you rightly put it, then slot the two paras on the supporting cast in after Bond and before the last two paras in the section (dealing with the state of Britain -- this should follow quite naturally from the bit about Blofeld acting against entire nations, which is where it'd be if you follow this suggestion).

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Referencing

• Bibliography entries should be in alphabetical author order.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can't see where Smith/Lavington or Simpson are cited -- unless cited, such books should go in a Further reading section after the bibliography.

• Removed them altogether - they are not the best sources for this book so wouldn't add anything extra - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Detail -- seems sufficient (no action required).

Supporting materials -- infobox looks fine and image has FUR for this article (no action required).

Summary -- usual good effort, just a couple of things to address before it passes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• All addressed, with the question over the Sunday Times reference still outstanding. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • All fine now, passing as GA -- well done again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's great news - many thank Ian! That's all the novels now with nice shiny green crosses on them! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)