Wikipedia:Peer review/List of James Bond films/archive1

List of James Bond films edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a new, un-reviewed and un-assessed list; it is also an important list as it is the lead for the numerous Bond films. The aim is for this list to achieve Featured list status.

Thanks, SchroCat (^ • @) 13:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List looks pretty good. Just a few points.

I think the "Main article" in "See also" section should just be another bullet point, preferably the first one in the list though, to indicate its importance. It's not really used in the summary style method that the template is usually used for.
For Casino Royale, "(parody)" doesn't need to be italicized. Also for that film, where it says "and others" as directors, perhaps say "and X others" like "and five others" or however many it is, so at least it'd provide some useful info without requiring to add all the names?
"Actual (Millions)" and "Adjusted (Millions)", "millions" should be lowercased I believe.
For the lead image, perhaps indicate how long the logo has been in use? Is that info easy to get? Has it been in use since the series' inception, and so, perhaps indicate that, either with years (19xx–present), etc.
I personally prefer placing commas after years, but I think it's optional. However, consistency is required. So if you got "in 1962, Broccoli" then I believe you need a comma after "In 1961".

That's about all I can catch for now. Just some minor, copyediting things that you need to look out for that will be caught at FLC. There might be more, and they would probably be similar to these ones, but I haven't seen them yet. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

The lead could perhaps be in chronological order (for instance, you jump from the overall series being the 2nd highest grossing to the spoof Casino Royale). The 2nd top grossing statement just seems odd where it is. But if you have a good reason for keeping lead as it, then by all means leave it :)
Ref 3: Judge McKeown. Do you have a first name?
Eon Productions series of films -> Series of films by Eon Productions? Or something similar (the current heading looks a bit awkward).
"...who plans to irradiate the gold supply of Fort Knox, making it worthless, increasing the value of his own supply." -> making it worthless and increasing the value of his own supply
Add TBA or TBD to Bond 23 synopsis?
The Guardian is italicized
Ref 8 confuses me. At the provided url, It says the article was taken from an issue of Goldeneye (Issue 3, vol. 1) but in the ref, you have Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
It's The New York Times
I would add publishers to all references, but that's just a personal opinion (Citing The Numbers and Box Office Mojo would look better with their publishers)
Ref 37: Use consistent date formatting
Add city for University of Wisconsin Press

That's all I got right now. As always, my comments are subjective (feel free to ignore them if you want!) Ruby comment! 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruby, Thanks for doing all this. I've followed all bar two of your suggestions:

Ref 37 is a template, so we can't alter the format. As you're not the first person to have mentioned this on articles I've worked on, I've left a note on the template page to see if there is an alternative way round it. Cracked that bit too, now!
Your point on the lead in chronological order is the other area I've shied away from. It can be done that way, but what we've done in other areas (on the James Bond in film page, or on the Films Template is to deal with the Eon films, then move onto the non-Eon films. It does mean that, for example, the gross sits in the middle of the paragraph, but as the "grossing series" applies only to Eon and not the others, there is a logic there! I've tweaked that particular sentence so that it reflects the circumstances.

Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the long listing of James Bond's titles in the opening sentence is a bit too much detail for this list. To open up the first paragraph, maybe consider moving up the lines about how many films there have been and how much they've earned. The more specific detail can then cover it in the following two paragraphs.
In the first paragraph of the lead, David Niven is listed as an actor in the series. However, instead of listing him last, he should be included chronologically with his portrayal, leaving Daniel Craig as last in the list.
"The series has since compassed 22 films..." Consider a different word choice, I typed a portion of the phrasing in Google, and it got less than a dozen hits. Maybe "encompassed" if you want to stick with that wording?
"...sold to producer Gregory Ratoff, later passing on to Charles K. Feldman ." To help break up this sentence, consider stopping it at "Gregory Ratoff." and rewording the next sentence to "After Ratoff's death, the rights were passed on to Charles K. Feldman who subsequently produced the satirical Bond spoof Casino Royale in 1967."
In the second or third paragraph, are there any awards the franchise has received that could be mentioned? Don't need to list all of them, but a brief overview on par with the box office sentence would be helpful.
The table lists the box office and budget in millions, but need to indicate if that's in dollars or other currency). Also indicate if adjusted millions is supposed to be for 2011 dollars. Okay, just saw the notes at the bottom. I think it would be better off to list it in the table itself instead of sending readers to the bottom of the list to get those details that can be briefly covered in the table.
For consistency, keep the film descriptions to the same length. Some would then either need more/less detail.
Consider linking the first occurrence of "SPECTRE" and other topics related to the franchise (since some of the villains are linked). Be selective though, don't need too many links.
"...assassinate James Bond; Bond in turn uses her to get a Soviet decoding machine." "...assassinate Bond; he in turn..."
"...devastate the North American coastline." Which coastline?
"...meets his greatest enemy..." I'd consider rewording that, as I'm sure there's some difference in opinion with all of the various villains in the franchise.
"...Bond falls in love with and marries a crime lord's suicidal daughter." Mention that she dies so readers don't think he's married throughout the rest of the films in the franchise.
"...still have a connection ... and a plan." Reword.
"...responsible for the death of Vesper Lynd..." Mention her in the description of Casino Royale to tie the two films together.
Extend the "TBA" for the 23rd film over to the box office, budget, and RT score.
"Sir James Bond 007 comes out of retirement..." Don't need the full title after only using "Bond" in the other descriptions. Also, move the parody mention away from the film title and include it in the description.
The non-Eon films box office/budget numbers are formatted inconsistently in relation to the above table.
Reword the title of reference number 37. The index includes 2011, not just up to 2008.
Are there any relevant external links that can be included?

Good work so far, most of these should be quick fixes. Let me know if you need further clarification on any of these. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference one is the title of the page even to this date - and also, it's template-based... igordebraga ≠ 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says it in the top of the browser if you click through to it but the actual title on the page only says "Consumer Price Index (Estimate) 1800-". Does the template need to be updated then? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a request on the template talk page to alter it accordingly. I think these are all done now (a couple by me, largely by igordebraga), except the awards and additional external links: I'll add these in the next day or so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For ref 3, you should state which language the source is in
Link publisher in ref 6
The refs seem to be inconsistent. Some cite only works, while others do the work and publisher
For ref 13, The Numbers should not be in italics as it is an online source
Personally, I think that all 6 directors should listed for the 67' parody

Overall, a good list. Crystal Clear x3 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for doing that. I've made the corrections as you suggested, with two exceptions:

Ref 3: Are you sure you mean ref 3? That one is in English, so the language doesn't need to be flagged.
Ref 13: The Numbers is italicised as it is the name of the work: Nash Information Services, LLC. is the un-italicised source.

Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]