Dr No is the sixth in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories, and the one which tempted a couple of film makers to see what they could do (and looked what happened when they tried). This article has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous Bond novel re-writes, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. It's had a very profitaAtble PR, where there were a lot of excellent comments, and the article is all the stronger for it. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was among the peer reviewers, and was very happy with the page at that point. Subsequent polishing has improved it further and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. This developing series on the 007 books is, I think, just what Wikipedia readers will be looking for: good background and context, clear plot summary, comprehensive coverage of reception and adaptations. This latest addition is well up to the high standard set earlier. Tim riley talk 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much along the lines of Tim, an excellent article and clearly meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for you both for your comments and thoughts both here and at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any reason for the book and film titles being "Dr. No" but the character being "Dr No"? EddieHugh (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The full stop isn't generally used after Mr, Dr, etc. I've looked at my copy of the novel again (hoping to find Fleming followed suit!), and as most of the versions drop it on the cover but he doesn't refer to Dr. or Dr No, but calls him Doctor No throughout. I'll follow suit to avoid confusion. – SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Box templates are reserved for pull quotes per template:quote box and per WP:MOS. Need to duplicate the text into the body of the article so the boxes become true pull quotes, or convert ((quote box)) templates to ((quote)) templates. Confirm all quotes are sourced.
More honoured in the breach than the observance, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. I think you will be happy if you convert them to blockquotes. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 09:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. The use of blockquote is a deliberate choice based on the formatting of the page, and the break of the text around the box. Using the QUOTE template provides a sub-standard reader experience. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Then you'll need to add the quote box text to the body so the quote boxes become pull quotes. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 10:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm happy for them not to be thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page. In most cases, this is not appropriate for use in encyclopedia articles. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the ((Quote)) template or the HTML <blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper.
Yes, I know what the guideline says, thanks. It is, after all, only a guideline and "recommends", rather than proscribes. Like many other FAs, GAs, FLs and other articles, this uses the box in a slightly different way. I have no more to say on the matter than that. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. I am not going to flog the quote box pull quote issue. However, I was percolating on images, and IMHO the article would benefit from another image or two. Additionally, the bird one is a bit dull and dark; only the caption saves it, and the caption is not succinct per MOS:CAPTIONS. Moving some of the quotes inline or converting them to blockquote using the ((quote)) template would free up some real estate for another germane image or two. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 19:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any suggestions for images that increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter I'd be happy to see them, but as the quotes help inform the reader, the bar is quite high as to what would be an improvement. – SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These are not good candidates for pull quotes (less than 1 out of every 10,000 WP articles has a pull quote in it; it's a bombastic journalistic style rarely used in an encyclopedic context). Just use the ((Quote)) template. WP is not a blog, and doesn't cutesy-decorate block quotations, but follows the style of paper encyclopedias and other mainstream publishing in this regard. The use of pull quote templates for block quotes (or inline quotes, for the shorter ones) in these cases is especially inappropriate and annoying. All of the uses are for wry critics' responses to fairly trivial matters, and do nothing like a pull quote, which highlight a quotation as encapsulating the central message of a piece or section. The purpose of pull-quote boxes of this sort is: "If you walk away with only one thing in mind after reading this, it should be what's in this box." Instead, this article it abusing the style badly, and repeatedly, to laser-target readers' attention to what turns out to be random, bald-faced trivia. It's a bait-and-switch move. PS, regarding the obvious WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument: If any FAs are doing something similar, they should be cleaned up to stop doing so. SchroCat's treatment of MoS as something to fight and rail against, instead of a community consensus to go along with except in rare WP:IAR circumstances, is WP:SOAPBOX stuff that FAC should not be swayed by. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stanton: First off, I removed some indentation from your comment to make it easier to read and comment on. I think the regular ((Quote)) template is only appropriate if the text says something like "In an interview, Foo said...". If a quote from a letter to Ian Fleming is added, it wouldn't make sense to have ((Quote)) since it wouldn't flow with the rest of the text. In this case, it should be either a pull quote or removed if deemed too trivial. With that said, I believe it offers a good illustration in lieu of more images in the article and should be kept. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm soap-boxing and need to be fought against? (and did you actually look at SOAPBOX? What exactly am I advertising here?!) Perhaps you could depersonalise your comments, rather than come in with all guns blazing simply to wind people up.
Firstly no, these are not "pull quotes" in the sense our MoS describes them: they are quotes formatted into boxes, rather than in-line. The quotes are relevant to the text where they are placed in much the same way as an image is (they enlighten the understanding of the reader—don't forget we here to serve them, not to make a fetish from a creaky MoS) without additional excessive text to make the same point the quote box does. As Montanabw recently put it, this is one of the many times that "The template documentation is out of date and out of sync with what they are actually used for." Our always flexible guidelines (not set in stone at all) around this don't reflect the reality, and it is they that should be made to fit with increasingly common usage (not an argument for here, obviously, but the thought of ever trying to discuss a change to the MoS with those that seem to fight all changes leaves me cold).
As to the claim that "All of the uses are for wry critics' responses to fairly trivial matters, and do nothing like a pull quote, I'm afraid that's just untrue, all of them are not. Two of these contain quotes from Ian Fleming and one contains a quote from a letter to Fleming. – SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't drag other editors into it; this is not a campaign. You (and allegedly Montanabw) have it backwards: The template documentation is not out of date. Rather, the early deployment of the templates is, and is in a slow process of being cleaned up. Years ago, there was no consensus on how best to format quotations on WP, and people just did whatever random thing they felt like. That has changed (see MOS:QUOTE). In the last few years, these templates, which were all over the place in style and purpose, have been consolidated into just a few variants, and those for pull quotes have been identified and documented as such. Moving on, no one said any of the quotes in the article are not relevant in their contexts. They are relevant and arguably should be preserved – as standard block quotations. What they are not is pull quotes. No amount of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-style special pleading by pointing at GAs/FAs that pre-date MoS's more specific instructions about quotation formatting is going to magically make MoS not apply to this article. See the #2 FA criterion: "It follows the style guidelines". The old article need quotation style cleanup; that is not going to be aided by adding more pages that need quotation style cleanup. If you want to push for Wikipedia to actually change to preferring that block quotations be put in a decorative box, feel free to open yet another RfC proposing this, at WT:MOS or WP:VPPOL. Good luck with that; the community does not want the encyclopedia articles to look like someone's personal blog, or such proposals would not have been repeatedly rejected already. PS: All WP guidelines are resistant to change, otherwise they would be useless as guidelines. You need to have an unassailable reason, not willy-nilly whim, to change one of them substantively, as their value is primarily in their stability and consistency. You can call guidelines "just guidelines" all you want, but it will not change the fact that they are not essays you can ignore at will. WP:IAR does not work the way you seem to think it does, nor does WP:PAG. And it's a moot point here because of criterion 2; if that criterion said "and complies with the following list of essays: ...", you'd need to comply with those as well to get the FA badge. You're free to propose in another RfC that FAC drop criterion #2 entirely. Unless that actually happens and it concludes with such a changed consensus, people need to stop treating FAC and similar forums as anti-guideline campaigning soapboxes. It's tendentious, and a WP:1AM problem. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could pull your horns in and stop addressing everyone like we're worthless pieces of shit? (And linking to meaningless essays won't wash – they hold no water here or anywhere else). You are personalising the debate against me to a degree that is unnecessarily contentious and disruptive. Your goading will fail, I'm afraid. Now, to the point in hand.
1. I never claimed it was anything like a "campaign" (and the link you used is an odd one - as it's the second time you've linked to that page, I'm not entirely sure you understand it. Perhaps you could check what you link to before you post next time). The reason I linked to Montana is that I don't like quoting people behind their back. (As such your accusation of a "campaign" fails AGF and is a shallowly disguised personal attack, but I am used to such things).
2. I am glad you have backtracked on your false claim on the content of these boxes (it's never good to make such mendacious statements when it's so obviously wrong).
2.1. I see that despite having your "error" pointed out to you above, you have again–deliberately–reiterated what I can only call a lie in describing the quote in the boxes as "trivial commentary". If you are unable to comment on this matter honestly (and without the unconstructive and disruptive wall of text) I suggest you move on to something more constructive.
3. Yes, as I indicated before, I have no wish to start an RfC on quote boxes for the reasons I outlined earlier: trying to discuss any changes on matters of style with the self-appointed 'guardians of the MoS' is something that leaves almost all editors too tired to even bother starting. Me included.
4. Local consensus can overrule the inherently flexible MoS, regardless of the inflexibility of approach of some who try and enforce the guidelines (not set-in-stone policies, but guidelines). It has done so on dozens of articles of varying standards. This isn't OSE, but LOCALCONSENSUS.
I have little desire to continue discussing this with you, particularly given your aggressive approach and PAs so far. Our opinions go in different directions on is point, and so far the LOCALCONSENSUS on this article is against you. – SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain (as the closing admin on this FAC), As Smccandlish has started leaving inappropriate Arbcom threats on my talk page (having possibly followed me to a discussion on the Cary Grant article), I will not be taking part in any further discussion with him. – SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note, I came across The Grapes of Wrath article that uses both types of quotes well. It illustrates why this article is the way it is. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See above; the fact that some other articles are misusing pull quote templates for things that are not pull quotes is not a good reason to misuse more pull quote templates. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least four citation are URLs missing accessdates. There may be more.
I cannot see to which ones you refer: could you say which FNs? - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for clarifying Checkingfax. The first three are books (linked to Google Books, but still books). As they have the unique identification there already (through ISBNs), no access date is needed. For Ian Fleming.com, I presume you mean footnote 3, which is the only use to support information: th access date is there already. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. The citations include URLs that are subject to WP:Linkrot so they do need accessdates. For printed books – no – but for citations with URLs – yes they are needed.
Not as far as I am aware (because if the Google link rots, the information is still supported by the physical book, for which we have the full publication details). Nikkimaria, as an experienced source reviewer, what's you're take on access dates for Google books? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Accessdate refers to when you were able to access the web page. If a citation has a URL, an accessdate is germane to it to prevent linkrot. This is one area where I see eye-to-eye with Flyer22 Reborn. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 09:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the documentation at Template:Cite book, "access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book", so I'll leave it out on that basis, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. No harm to include them just in case the link rots out. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 09:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the link rots out then we still have the full publishing details in place. Those sources will not have changed from the books which are not on GoogleBooks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Access dates are useful for websites that change over time; in this case, the source being cited will not change whether it was cited 10 years ago or yesterday. URL is a key part of a web citation, but for a book citation even if the link does rot the citation remains complete. Per the documentation, access date is not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<ref name="Obs: Richardson> as you can see is missing the closing quote mark. This occurs in at least 2 places with that ref. Check for more.
That ref is used only once that I can see, not twice. Can you point me to the second one? (I've fixed the first). - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. It is used once to precede the full citation then it is used again at least once as a standalone ref name that is self-closing with a forward slash in it. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 09:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'd covered this in the first edit. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some pedantic editors like to see WP:LDR style references listed alphabetically by leading initial
Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by this - I'm utterly unsure. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Instead of this:
<ref name="Cook (2004)">
((cite news|last=Cook|first=William|title=Novel Man|newspaper=New Statesman|date=28 June 2004|page=40))</ref>
<ref name="ABR: JB Jamaican">
((cite news|last=Thomson|first=Ian|title=James Bond the Jamaican|newspaper=Arts & Book Review|date=6 June 2008|p=21))</ref>
<ref name="Bergonzi (1958)">
((cite journal|last=Bergonzi|first=Bernard|title=The Case of Mr Fleming|journal=Twentieth Century|date=March 1958|authorlink=Bernard Bergonzi|page=221))</ref>
they prefer to see them in alphabetical order by the leading letter like this:
<ref name="ABR: JB Jamaican">
((cite news|last=Thomson|first=Ian|title=James Bond the Jamaican|newspaper=Arts & Book Review|date=6 June 2008|p=21))</ref>
<ref name="Bergonzi (1958)">
((cite journal|last=Bergonzi|first=Bernard|title=The Case of Mr Fleming|journal=Twentieth Century|date=March 1958|authorlink=Bernard Bergonzi|page=221))</ref>
<ref name="Cook (2004)">
((cite news|last=Cook|first=William|title=Novel Man|newspaper=New Statesman|date=28 June 2004|page=40))</ref>
Thanks for the explanation. That's background coding that has no impact on man nor beast (or even a computer!), so I'll leave it as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. It helps future editors perform their edits. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 09:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A portal for Books could be added but that might be redundant. Your call.
I have no idea about the portals and from what I know about them, I'm generally underwhelmed, so I'll leave it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A portal for film could be added since the article is in the film category
As above, but with the extra reasoning that this article is about the book, so the film detail is almost tangential, and the portal even more so. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the publishers' name needed in the infobox image caption? You tell me. I do not know.
Probably not, given it's shown a few lines below: now removed - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #41 is throwing a red error because there is an accessdate but no URL in the citation. Either: 1) remove the date portion after the accessdate parameter or 2) add a URL to the citation. You can see it at this permalink, but when you make the edit to fix it, do not edit from that old page; be sure to edit from the most recent page. The error looks like this: |access-date= requires |url=
Hi, SchroCat. In infoboxes, well most anyway, image size does not need to be called out unless you are trying to scale the image up and the image is under 220 pixels. If you do need to scale up you can omit the px portion of the scaling. So where this is:
| image_size = 200px
delete the 220px portion so it looks like this:
| image_size =
The image will stretch to fit. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 09:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 200px in there shrinks the image a tad: without that shrinkage it domainates the top on smaller screens, to my eye at least. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Hmmm. I have not experienced that in this infobox. MOS:ACCESSIBILITY and MOS:IMAGES and a few other places guide us not to hard size images unless forced to. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 09:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, they are guidelines, not hard-proscribed rules. The image is still within all reasonable ACCESS guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Yeah. MoS is merely a guideline to promote a consistent order of things and equal access. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 09:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding the website parameter:
| website = to the info box and populating it with this metadata: ((official website)) then migrating the book's official URL to Wikidata. At that point the infobox will pull the URL from Wikidata.
In External links, remove the official website cruft and replace it with this:
* ((official website)) of [[Ian Fleming Publications]]
and it will fetch the URL from Wikidata.
No, I think not on balance. The IB contains enough information about the book without bloating it out further. If the festering turd of Wikidata decides to drop unsourced, unreferenced and unsupported rubbish into the IB at a later date, it'll be reverted as the vandalism it is. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is all for now. I will check back later in the FA review process for further comments and to !vote. Ping me back any time. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 08:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC) ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Checkingfax. A couple of questions to be answered in there, where you've lost me entirely. If you could clarify what you mean, I'll try and work it out. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Much improved since the PR, and I'm more than happy to support this excellent article to FA. CassiantoTalk 22:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Cass, for your thoughts and comments - glad you enjoyed it! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just a few comments, but in general the article is very good:
"Dr. No was the first of Fleming's novels to face wide negative criticism in Britain": I would say "widespread" rather than "wide" here, personally.
"More recently BBC Radio produced a version": I would specify "BBC Radio 4".
The caption on the picture of the Roseate Spoonbills is confusing if you read it before the section on Plot in which it appears. Maybe make it clear what island you are referring to?
"the location became the background for Crab Key": does this mean "the location inspired Crab Key"? I assume so, but am not sure. If so, why do you not just say that?
As I say though, these are minor nitpicks and matters of taste, and they do not affect my support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto. These are all steps forward I think, and have been adopted into the article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
WorldCat shouldn't be italicized
Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Nikkimaria, all now altered. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An enjoyable and informative article. I haven't read the book since the 1960s, but now I'm tempted to read it again. I have a few nitpicks, which I'm happy for you to ignore if you think they would not improve the article.
"Dr. No was serialised in The Daily Express, first in an abridged, multi-part form and later as a comic strip." Doesn't "serialised" and "multi-part" mean the same thing?
"The island has a colony of roseate spoonbills at one end while local rumour is that there is a vicious dragon living there." there...there
other devices from Rohmer's novels included Doctor No's secret lair and the use of the mad scientist trope. Would linking "trope" be useful?
Hi Graham, Many thanks for your thoughts. All are good, and have been adopted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. Just to show I've read the article, here are my nitpicks:
I would move up the mention of Jamaica's colonial status into the first paragraph.
"Venus elegans" are species names not usually italicised?
"of inaccessible mangrove swamp and salt flats" evidently not inaccessible.
"the books about whom" maybe "who featured in books"
"The novelist Raymond Benson—who later wrote a series of Bond novels" something more novel, perhaps?
"about the meaning of power with a number of villains in the series. His conversation with Doctor No reveals that the latter believes it can only be secured through the privacy required to maintain the sovereignty of his island; he quotes Carl von Clausewitz's first principle in support of his argument" Does how you secure power go to its meaning? And you may want to illuminate us as to von Clausewitz's principle.
"Benson sees no discrimination in the relationship between the two men[29] " this is somewhat at odds with the discussion of the relationship between Bond and Quarrel earlier.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Wehwalt, all dealt with and all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some late comments – not too late, I trust. I've also done bits of light ce which you may wish to check out.
In the lead: "did not come to fruition" is unnecessarily verbose – you could just say " failed" or "foundered". The identical phrase appears in the "background" section.
Background
"In June 1956 the author Ian Fleming became involved in a project with the producer Henry Morgenthau III to collaborate on a planned television series..." → "In June 1956 the author Ian Fleming began a collaboration with the producer Henry Morgenthau III on a planned television series..."
"By January 1957 he had published four novels in successive years..." I'd be inclined to say "Bond novels"
The paragraph beginning "The writer Simon Wilder..." seems oddly placed in "Background", since it discusses the finished work. Probably better sited in the "reception" area.
"echoed in the cover" → "echoed on the cover"?
Plot inspirations
I think the two "withs" in the first line should each read "of"
Instead of the gnomic "the location inspired Crab Key", could we not have a line which indicates what it was about the location that identified it in Fleming's mind with Dr No's lair?
Unfortunately not in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is Patricia Wilder's nickname, rather than her name, that Fleming used for the book's heroine.
Characters
Opening sentence: the construction "For the first time in the Bond novels, there is friction between Bond and M in Dr. No" freads oddly. I prefer: "In Dr. No, for the first time in the Bond novels, there is friction between Bond and M..."
"Rider is one of three women..." I'd probably use her fuller name here
"ideal concept" – perhaps "idealised concept"?
Style
"Amis" needs to be identified.
Publication history
" In 1964 the novel was serialised in France-Soir for the French market, which led to increased sales of Bond works in that country, with 480,000 French-language copies of the six Bond novels being sold that year." I'd split this.
While I have no particular criticism of the second paragraph, again I feel it is misplaced, as it is not concermed with "publication history". As to its best place, I'm not quite sure, since it discusses Fleming's work generally rather than concentrating on Dr No. Perhaps put it at the end of the "reviews" section, after the specific book criticisms?
I have mulled over this a lot previously. It not rightr to go into the review section, as it's not about the reviews for this work, but it did have an impact on the sales etc. Would it be better in the "Background" section, or where it is? - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews
"For the first time in the series..." → "For the first time in the Bond series..."
"The unnamed critic in The Manchester Guardian referred to Johnson's "sex, snobbery and sadism" complaint, and conceded that while "the casualties take place on a somewhat narrower front than usual, they are heavy". I get a sense of non sequitur here; heavy casualties do not obviously equate to sex, snobbery and sadism.
"In April 1958, Fleming wrote to the paper..." Clarify if this is still the MG
"Fleming partly accepted the criticism from the paper..." last three words unnecessary
"Chandler...praised the first chapter as "masterly" in Fleming's depiction of colonial Kingston." Not actually grammatical, should be "praised as "masterly" Fleming's depiction of colonial Kingston in the first chapter."
"Chandler was also praising of..." – awkward. Perhaps just "Chandler admired..."
"the Fleming biographer" → "Fleming's biographer"
"described it in terms of" → "described it as"
Adaptations
Suggest delete "also" in the first line
"It was the first Bond novel in the Eon Productions series..." Surely you mean the first Bond film?
Nothing of great significance here, and I look forward to supporting when these are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, thanks for taking the time to look over this. I've followed your suggestions on all but two points, and given the reasons above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Do as you think best with the remaining issues. I am happy to support as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Brian. Having slept on it again—and taking into account that Moisejp also raised the point in the PR—I have moved it from where it was and into the Background section. It's one of those events that doesn't fit perfectly in any of the individual book articles, or any of the sections of the articles, but it's a key point, particularly given the Paul Johnson critique later. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment -- recusing from coord duties, and piling on as an unashamed fan of the books, I made a few small changes and have just one suggestion:
"In From Russia, with Love Fleming experimented with an unusual narrative structure..." -- might leave the uninitiated hanging, do you think it's worth briefly (just a few words if possible) stating what was unusual?
Tweaked, see how you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better - thanks for that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Structure, level of detail, tone and the prose overall seem fine to me so about ready to support but see below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review -- licensing for both looks appropriate but neither of the source links worked for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian, both for the text and image review. I've swapped the spoonbill image for something that works, and replaced the link on the book cover. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, tks Gav. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Checkingfax mentioned this earlier, but I noticed the only image in the article besides the cover is of a Roseate spoonbill bird, which is fairly trivial. It would seem odd for a FA to only have that much illustration. If you can find some images that can pass image review to help illustrate some of the major concepts, that would be ideal. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to Checkingfax, if you have any suggestions for images that increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter I'd be happy to see them. Just for the sake of comparison, the previous book in the series (also an FA) has the same number of images. – SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that link. I feel like the Adaptations section could use an image from the comic strip and/or film articles, although the FRWL article does not have any images in this section either. For the sake of consistency, it could be omitted, although I still feel it to be a bit sparse in the image realm. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no copyright free images for either the strip or film, and we'd be hard-pushed to justify the non-free criteria, – SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I presume one could use the same rationale as used in the strip and film articles, but in any case, I think the quotes are an adequate substitute for the purposes of a novel article as I mention in the above discussion regarding "pull quotes". Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the novel, and a fair use rationale would not be acceptable to illustrate the secondary issue of adaptations. I suppose we could slot the old Goldeneye image into the Writing section – it appears in other Bond novel articles. But I don't see a great necessity. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my comments were addressed during the peer review. Here are a few more:
I noticed you removed mention of Chris Blackwell. I thought it was an interesting fact. But if someone else asked you to remove it, no worries.
Yes, it was removed in the advice of another editor. – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a mini-edit just now about the "Carl von Clausewitz's first principle" part, but I'm still not convinced it is clear. Perhaps consider just removing the sentence, if it doesn't clearly let the reader understand how Dr. No's beliefs were related to this principle?
Again, it was advised by another editor. I think the inclusion is justified, so it's probably my text that needs work (I added a couple of words to help, but I acknowledge I may need to do a little more). – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think your edit today makes it clearer. Thanks.
"Many of the female characters in the Bond series have a physical flaw, and Rider has a broken nose—the result of the rape she suffered." The footnote only gives one other example, which I found possibly not convincing for "many".
Yep, quite right. I've tweaked the main text and footnote a little: look any better? – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's definitely better.
I think Wehwait said something about this too, but the the rosy depiction of Bond's and Quarrel's relationship at the end of the Themes section doesn't acknowledge that a more troubling aspect (about superiority and inequality) has previously been mentioned (in Characters). I'm not totally sure what to suggest here. Maybe just a small mention in Themes about "Notwithstanding other writers' depiction of the inequality in the relationship, Linder describes ... ; Benson sees ... " Moisejp (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ive added the Lindner name in there. There is a 'natural superiority' aspect in Fleming's writing, but that's common in much British writing of the time, and a reflection of society at the time, so there may be a cultural nuance to this for some readers. – SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read this comment before I read your edit, and I thought, "Just that surely won't help much." But when I read your edit I was surprised that the addition seemed to improve the overall flow. Maybe having the extra name in there serves as a subconscious reminder that these are all different people's opinions, so the difference from the Characters section seems less jarring. In any case, it worked for me.
I should say, thanks very much for your in depth comments, thoughts and edits at PR: they were very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, and I am happy to support this article. Moisejp (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 14:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.