Wikipedia

Talk:Diamonds Are Forever (novel)/GA1

< Talk:Diamonds Are Forever (novel)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Schrodinger's cat is alive in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago34 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will review this in the next day or two. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's great - many thanks. I should be able to get most of your queries and points answered and edited within a few hours. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks good overall, and actually made me want to go and read the novel! Just a few points (some very nitpicky) to sort out. I've done some light copy-editing as I've gone through, but please feel free to revert anything that you're not happy with. (The main thing I did was to add in-text attribution of the quotes.) --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think they're all good edits, although I tweaked one slightly: feel free to revert that if you don't like it! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Lead
  • Some slightly odd linking in the first sentence; novel is linked to James Bond novels on the second instance. It may be more elegant to say "Diamonds Are Forever is the fourth of Ian Fleming's James Bond series of novels": and link "James Bond series of novels" to James Bond novels.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The lead is a little short; I think it needs some details from the Characters and themes and Background sections.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Not too sure about "mixed" reviews. They seem somewhere between average and quite negative.
  • I think there are mixed as there is a very broad spread of opinions: The Observer and Sunday Times (Chandler) reviews are both positive right the way through to the Boucher very negative. Even within the same reviews they are mixed with the TLS both praising and berating Fleming. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Plot
  • I don't usually review novels, so I'm not sure what is standard practise here. However, this section looks slightly long to me; it is roughly a third of the entire article and may be a little too detailed. Just as an example, I would cut "Two months after the Moonraker incident". I would suggest at least cutting a paragraph from it and would prefer (but not insist on by any means) cutting it to two paragraphs altogether. However, if GA or FA novel articles routinely have sections of an equivalent length, that would be fine.
  • I think the section may need a brief copy-edit but I will wait for the above point to be resolved.
  • I've had a go at copy-editing the plot. Please revert anything you don't like or that doesn't work. The copy-edit has addressed some of my concerns by cutting down the length slightly. My only questions that remains on this section are on the amount of detail in the final paragraph about the plot: possibly too much? Also, when "ABC" shuts down the operation, could it be explained why? Did he know Bond was on to him?
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • One other point also occurred to me; I have not read the book, but in the film, Wint and Kidd are homosexual. If this is also the case in the novel, is it worth mentioning? I imagine this was not common in Bond books, or any other books of this kind at the time.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Characters and themes
  • "According to continuation Bond author...": Presumably this means someone who has written Bond novels after Fleming? It took me a few goes to work this out and only because I have a vague knowledge of this happening. Is it not a quite official "post"? But to the uninitiated, or someone looking at this from what they know of the films, it may need briefly explaining.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "this allowed Fleming to discuss the nature of marriage through Bond." Unless this can be expanded (i.e. discussed how? Saying it was good? Bad?), I would remove it as unnecessary detail.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • A little expansion on the link between diamonds and death may be useful.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "With multiple locations and two villains, there was "no megalomaniac fervour, no weird self-obsession, at the dark centre of the plot"": Presumably this is in contrast to the previous novels?
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Background
  • "Gore complained about the use of his name, but was ignored by Fleming and the name was retained for the novel." It's not quite clear here whether Gore complained before or after the publication of the novel. The implication is that it was before, in which case Gore presumably read the manuscript?
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • " known to his friends as 'Boofy'": Should it be double quotation marks: "Boofy"?
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Release and reception
  • Although some sales figures are given, it may be worth including as much information as possible here. I noticed page 21 of the James Bond reader had some information, including the impact of the release of the films on the sale of the novels.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "Raymond Chandler said of Diamonds Are Forever that it was "about the nicest piece of book-making in this type of literature which I have seen for a long time...Mr. Fleming writes a journalistic style, neat, clean, spare and never pretentious"." I'm a little uncomfortable with a quote from an advert for the book being used here. If possible it would be better to access the original, as for all we know, the rest of his review may have said "however, the story is terrible"!
  • I am too, but I cannot find the review from which this is taken. The Sunday Times has no online archive prior to 1980 and it would need a trip to British Library newspaper archives for me to get the rest of the article.
  • Hmmm. It is quite a good quote, but the source makes me cringe a little. I suppose it is OK, but I think we are really stretching the source. Possibly state that the quote by Chandler as used in publicity for the novel? That would cover the source until a better one came along. I don't know. I'll have a think! --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Maybe mention Black's comments about the lack of centre to the story here as well? Or maybe move the "centre: comment from the background to the review? Not sure.
  • I've tried to keep the reviews section just for the contemporary reviews that were released at the time the book was published, whilst Black's book is not a review per se, but an in-depth study of the politics surrounding Bond.
Adaptations
  • Again, possibly mention the impact of the film's release on the sales of the book.
  • I've added it to the Release and reception section: does it need it here too?
References
  • Only able to so limited checks, but managed to look at enough through Google Books and an Amazon preview of the Lycett book to be happy apart from some very minor points.
  • Ref 5 gives page 52, but according to google books, the page which supports the information is page 25.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "...which led to a subsequent rise in the sales of the novel": Ref 21 does not quite support this; this suggests that the specific serialisation helped the specific novel to sell more. The source merely says that the (generic) strip helped general sales of the novels.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The refs are for Black 2004, but the publication date in the bibliography is 2005.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Other stuff
  • Images are fine, and the fair use image seems good. No dab links and all external links working fine.

Overall, an excellent article and no real problems to prevent it passing quickly. Just a few issues to sort. I'll place this on hold for now to allow for the above issues to be discussed or worked on. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've addressed a few of the more easily addressed points and I'll have to look at the others in more depth this evening. I've marked above those I've had a chance to deal with or can comment on, but that doesn't mean I'm not doing the rest - I just need to be able to spin through my reference material again to do it properly. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think I've covered it all now, but please let me know if there is anything you feel still needs further examination. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Last two points
  • "The main theme in the novel writ large in the title, according to Benson and the theme is used to contrast other aspects of the writing, especially love and life.": I'm possibly being dense, but I don't quite understand this. What is the theme? I follow the metaphor of death, but I'm not getting "writ large in the title" and how this links to love and life. The fault may be with the source rather than the article!

  Done Done, I hope! the original wasn't too clear, but I hope that this version is... - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Regarding sales, are there any overall sales figures apart from the first print run? It would be good to know how many copies sold altogether (or at least up to a certain date). It may also be interesting to compare sales to other Bond novels. However, I appreciate this may not be possible. (I don't suppose we know if it made it onto any "bestseller" charts if such things existed then?)
  • I've not found any bestseller references for this one although there are for later books. There is some very limited information from Pan about their book sales, but that doesn't take into account all sales by any means. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Once these last two points are addressed (or you have told me to stop being thick!) I will happily pass. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

All good now, fantastic work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
That's fantastic news: thanks very much indeed! - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diamonds_Are_Forever_(novel)/GA1&oldid=1079333572"