Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Casino Royale (novel)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Casino Royale (novel) edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was Ian Fleming's first stab at novel writing, undertaken during his annual two-month holiday in Jamaica (the lucky so-and-so) to kill time before his wedding. It's the novel that led to a 46 other Bond books by Fleming and others, a commercially successful film series, and adaptations of the character for television, radio, comic strip, video games, after shave, mobile phones, toys, etc, etc. For all that, it's a decent spy story by a first-time author; to paraphrase Fleming's description of his work, it may not be Literature with a capital L, but it is a 'thriller designed to be read as literature'. This article has benefitted from an informal PR from a high-quality cast list, following a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As one of the informal peer reviewers (I took my jacket and tie off) I have found it no hardship at all to revisit this article for FAC. It can't have been easy to get the images, and the page is as well illustrated as I can imagine possible. The prose is a pleasure to read, the coverage comprehensive, the text well balanced and the research wide and thoroughly documented. Plainly meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, as always, for your excellent comments at PR and here. They are appreciated, as they always are. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in good nick. Some minor points:

Lede
  • Why "continuation" in quotes?
  • "The book was given broadly positive reviews by critics at the time and sold out in less than a month in the UK, although US sales upon release a year later were much slower." I think it might be better to mention the date of release here rather than in the next paragraph.
Background
  • "Foreign Manager in the Kemsley newspaper group," -is the capitalisation official here? No article on Kemsley?
  • A Google Books search shows mixed results; I've left them in, as otherwise he could be a non-English manager, if you want to deliberately misread it! Nothing on Kelmsey. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any background information which might be directly related to his writing, had he expressed a previous interest in writing, or did he just begin with no experience? Later on you mention his brother being a writer which comes as a surprise. Something on the family's writing background might be good at an earlier stage here.
  • No other background on his writing, and the first he mentioned it was to do with wanting to do a spy book. I mulled about the family point, and if was the Fleming article I would have brought it up earlier, but as it's about the background to CR, I'm not sure it's as relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you don't want to go into too much anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creation
  • Perhaps link Estoril the town itself.
  • I thought about that, but as the casino was the focus of the activity, I thought tat was the best one to go with. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to link Bulgarians?
Themes
  • "Casino Royale was written shortly after, " -not exactly really, seven years later, shortly after you'd think 1946-8 or something, perhaps reword.
  • Do you think it might read better without the fairly short sections or is it essential for clarity?
  • Again something I've mulled over, and I'm still not sure which way to go on this. Perhaps we can leave it as is, until someone else agrees with you, and we can spin it at that point? - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure myself, I see the use in the sub section titles as they clearly define the themes, but they are relatively short, that was all I was saying!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "Concluding, Ross thought that... ", maybe just "He concluded that the book was both "exciting and extremely civilized".
Adaptations
  • The long sentence is rather long!

♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you mean The Long Goodbye, then I've re-worked the couple of sentences around it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Doc - all sorted, I hope! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include accessdates for online newspapers
  • FN88: the bank is a publisher, not a work
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations
  • All ddone, except those which are obvious from the title (Manchester University Press, etc), which I think is in line with the MoS: please let me know if consistency is preferrable, and I'l fill inthese off couple of gaps too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Griswold's work is classed as an approved reference book by Ian Fleming Publications, the family company of Ian Fleming and holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works. The work has been accepted by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion as a serious source and has been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009. The question was also raised Reliable sources noticeboard, who are happy enough, given the background). – SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, thanks Nikkimaria. Happy to talk further on the Griswold point, if you think there is still an issue with it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With your explanation I'm happy with Griswold. For the locations, though, we can't assume that a Cambridge book is published in Cambridge - they do substantial publishing in New York. I would suggest including a location for that one, at least. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for the clarification: I've added locations for all of them, going on consistency throughout (it would have looked odd with only a few without the location in there). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my talk page review. Good work, Schro! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Crisco - your comments at PR were spot on, as always. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My concerns were largely addressed during the talk page review process. I have one point left over from that. In the "Anglo-American relations" section you refer to "the defections of two members of MI6 to the Soviet Union". Presumably these are Burgess and MacLean, and they should be named here. They have not been mentioned since the lead, and not everyone is sufficiently informed on Cold War treachery as to automatically identify them. That's all – an entertaining article that makes me (almost) want to read the book. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Brian. I'd added the names as a footnote, following your PR comments, but I've now raised these up into the body of the article. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Recusing from coord duties, this hardly needs my support but I enjoyed doing the GA review (this being a personal favourite among the Fleming novels) and I was interested to see how Schro had developed and restructured it...

  • Prose looks good, I just tweaked a word or two.
  • Level of detail seems sufficient for FA. The only niggle I have is "Valentine Fleming, a wealthy banker and MP who died in action in May 1917". Most of us will know that means during World War I but if you could add where or in which battle, with a link, it'd help the uninitiated.
  • Structure-wise I think there's room for improvement. If you're using subsections it seems to make sense to have two or more but Style is the only one in Background and writing. Further, I wonder if there isn't something superior to Creation for the next section heading, since surely the writing, which you've described earlier, is part of the "creation". Development mightn't be ideal but I think it's better, or you might be able to come up with something else again.
    • Thanks Ian Rose; Doc Blofeld suggested that I should perhaps get rid of most of the sub-sections. Would you agree that this may be a way to go...? - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I checked out a few novel FAs, as well as MOS/Novels. I think you could afford to break Style out into its own section, before or after Themes, as you see fit -- but feel free to see if that offends any of the other reviewers... ;-) As for Themes itself, I see DrB's point about the smallish subsections, although I think only one is a single paragraph and therefore a bit of a MOS no-no (same with Publication history for that matter) -- call me neutral on this one, I won't complain if you leave as is or if you lose the subheaders. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK: I've moved Style down the page and into its own section (above Themes): I thought it would look a little too short and a bit lost, but it doesn't, which is good. I'm also still sitting on the fence about the Themes sub-paras, but there's still time for someone to chip in one way or t'other to swing the vote. In regards to the Publication history, I've split the para in twain, to give one on the UK and one on the US, as I'd rather keep the history separate from the critics comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine by me. I wonder if Backgound and writing could lose the and writing since Background seems to lead more naturally to Development, but supporting regardless, especially now image and source reviews look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes - it doesn't need to be there, as backgrond can cover the whole lot, so its now trimmed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several images have been added since the GA review so I'd prefer to see say Nikki or Crisco review licensing before I add my full support.
  • Likewise I'll hold off full support until Nikki has signed off on sources.

Well done as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Cheers Ian! Thanks for the tweaks: they're a great improvement. I've asked Crisco and Nikki to come back and comment on the two different parts, (which Crisco has now done so, since the edit conflict!) I've covered all the other points, except the sub-section one. I'm happy to remove them, if you think it would be an improvement, especially given Doc Blofeld's suggestion on this point above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your detailed tinkering, thoughts and comments - it's a much stronger piece now than it was. Hopefully I'll have another of the books to bring along in the not-too-distant future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
  • File:Hoagy Carmichael - 1947.jpg - Uploaded by light show, who is currently under a CCI. What evidence do we have that this was first published in the US? Also, if we do keep this image, we should rework it to remove that God-awful autoleveling. More contrast is okay, but this is ridiculous.
I don't think we can keep this photo. Here's a photo from the same session, but uncropped. When you zoom it, there's a 1946 RKO copyright at lower right. These are from The Best Years of Our Lives. We hope (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Crisco 1492. I've swapped out the light show image for one uploaded by We hope, who is much more reliable with their sourcing of images (the new file is File:Hoagy Carmichael circa 1953.JPG). I've taken out the Goldeneye image - it was a nice to have, but don't add enough to push for a non-free pass on it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: in the Plot section, is the "The bitch is dead now." quote necessary? Seems oddly specific for a plot summary. I agree with the use of the "Opening lines" quotebox which illustrates the writing style as described in the Style section. But, unless that particular Plot quote is notable, I think it can be effectively summarized, "...Bond coldly informs...of Lynd's duplicity and death." --maclean (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Butting in, I see your point, OTOH it's a famous line in the Bond series (one of the few I recall making it intact into the 2006 film, great though the adaptation was IMO) so I'd be happy for it to stay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Ian. Very important part of characterization there. "Cold" just doesn't cut it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's an odd one, as I usually eschew quotes in plot sections (having taen all of Fleming's other books to GA a few years ago, I can't think I used a quote in the plot apart from this), but there is a hardness and finality to it that is diffcult to translate to encyclopaedic prose without losing the impact. If you look at the two versions side by side you'll see wht I mean:
          • coldly telling his contact, "The bitch is dead now."
          • coldly telling his contact of Lynd's duplicity and death.
        • Given some of the doubts Bond expressed earlier in the book about his job, this final hardness is his turn away from the Graham Greene-style philosophising secret agent, into the "blunt instrument" character that is shown in the following books. Thanks for your thought on this - it's always interesting to have to challenge one's own thought process! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EddieHugh

There's a common problem here that articles on topics likely to be familiar to many have: too much is assumed of the reader. Specifically, from the Plot section (and adding some things on problems for the reader):

  • "M, the Head of the Secret Service". Which secret service?
  • "assigns James Bond, 007". Who is this person? What does "007" signify?
  • I really do think the protagonist is well known enough not to need further introduction, and the context makes it doubly so. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Deuxième Bureau and the CIA". Again, just stating what countries these are from would help, as the reader wouldn't have to follow the links.
  • I have added for the Deuxième, but not the CIA, which I think is well enough known. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wins the first round, bankrupting Bond". Bankrupting him personally? I don't think that "bankrupt" is an accurate word for someone who loses all the money he enters a casino with.
  • "In the midst of the torture session". Wouldn't "during" be more accurate, if the torture ended soon after?
  • "as he recuperates in the hospital". Why not use British English, given the topic (cut "the")? The next sentence begins "When he is released from hospital", which is British English.
  • Any indication of when the story takes place? EddieHugh (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except where indicated, and except the last point, which is no, not overtly within the story itself. Many thanks for your thoughts here - they are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with what's been done following my comments. Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, EddieHugh, much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Casino_Royale_(novel)/archive1&oldid=1138457148"