Talk:Goldfinger (novel)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goldfinger (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

• Images. The images comply with our conditions and meet GA criteria; however, the image of Sir Ian McKeller, though he is mentioned in the text, could perhaps be considered purely decorative. Given the lack of other images in the article, it may be seen as a little out of place and potentially distracting. This is just a passing comment. No action needed for the GAN. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Stable. No problems. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Ref section. Has an appropriate reference section, though I will have a little grumble that the awkward, less popular short reference style has been introduced to the article. It is discouraged to change the ref layout style once an article has been established, and when that change is from the more useful long style to the awkward short style you're going to get a growl from me every time! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• My only excuse is that the sfn is the form that I understand best without messing it up too much! It's also the format that is used on all the Fleming novels too, so there is consistency in the wider scheme of things. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There are those who like it because of its association with academia, though it has to be borne in mind that the short style was devised to save space in books, when a full footnote on every page would be tiresome, or in essays, when a full inline footnote would be distracting; it doesn't make any sense for a Wikipedia article. And it makes things a little harder for the reader. Take for example me wanting to check out "was presented a complex character". I click on the cite link which takes me to "Black 2005, p. 40." - in order to discover more I click on that link which takes me to the full cite which includes a useful link to the Google Books. I click on that, but I'm not taken to the page, as it's a generic link, so I have to go back to the article, and then back up to the short cite to see which page is cited. Page 40. I go back to Google Books to find that page. In this case I discover that page 40 is not included in the preview. If it was or wasn't I could have found out earlier and easier if the full cite had been used. Making readers look in two different places for one piece of information is damned frustrating, especially when we have a decent and popular full citation system. It is irksome for no value at all. If the reference section is just there to look pretty, OK, but it is there to serve a function, and the short cite method serves that function poorly. Rant over! ;-) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• All areas pass apart from MoS - Lead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsure

*Lead. The lead is usually an area that needs a bit of work to meet GA criteria. I've not looked closely at it yet to see if it can scrape a pass, can be done quickly or needs a bit of work. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. It does need a bit of work.
  • To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.
  • There is much in this article that is not even hinted at in the lead. Release and reception, themes and some of the characters other than Goldfinger and Bond, and that fascinating background. The lead should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the main information about the novel. At the moment it is a simply a brief introduction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem: I'll go over this tonight to see what i can come up with. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The plot section is broken into three sub-sections. If I recall the novel, these are the three sections the novel is split into - and this is based on the Goldfinger quote. If that is the case, it would be appropriate to make that clear in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've just been looking at the Lindner book on Google. A section on narrative structure by Umberto Eco. Nice! I'll have a read of that later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's a great read - pretty much what you'd expect from someone with a brain like Eco's! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, enjoyed that. Shame that three random pages were not included in the scan. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• What does "Academic Jeremy Black considers that Bond "was presented a complex character" in Goldfinger" mean? Does this mean that Black thought that Fleming had developed Bond into a complex character? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes it does: I've tweaked the sentence to make it more clear. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"was presented a complex character" is an awkward phrase, and I wonder if it should read "was presented as a complex character". Interestingly I did a search for "was presented a complex character" in general and in Black's book specifically, with no result. I then did a general search for "was presented as a complex character" and found it in Black's book, but on page 72 rather than page 40, and used in relation to a female narrator (Vivienne Michel? I can't see the full page) rather than Bond himself. Can you throw any light on this? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right: "was presented as a complex character" is the quote. I've dropped the full quote back in, but feel free to revert if you think the shorter version is better. I've checked Black again and yes, it's the right quote and it's on page 40. I suspect that as the version on Google Books has the relevant pages blocked, then text searches won't show any results, either in the hidden or open formats. That's just a guess, as I'm no 100% sure how Google Books works! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Damn good read. Some interesting stuff - I like the Goldprick comment! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hold

Putting on hold for an initial seven days to allow the lead to be developed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work on the Lead. Passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Revised version of novel?

Wikipedia's article for Oddjob includes the unsourced statement that a second, revised edition of this novel was published in which some references to martial arts were corrected. This is the first time I've ever heard of this. Is anyone aware of Fleming releasing a revised version of the book? It is certainly important information to include here if so. (And if the information is incorrect, it should be removed from the Oddjob article.) 50.66.121.20 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not something that I have ever seen in any of the sources I've seen (although I haven't dug around everything on the subject). - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Plot

Might be worth mentioning that, as Sean Connery explains in the film version, the novel's plot is unworkable. Ian Fleming made the usual and rather vulgar mistake of imagining that gold is much more valuable in relation to its weight and bulk than it actually is. (The same problem famously applies to The Italian Job, and to the otherwise excellent and esteemed 1969 British TV series The Gold Robbers.) If you try to rob Fort Knox, it would take so long to load and transport a worthwhile amount of the depository's gold bullion that the US authorities are pretty much bound to interrupt and detain you. The film substitutes a much cleverer plan, to detonate a 'dirty' atomic bomb in the vault, irradiating the US gold reserve and pretty certainly causing economic chaos in the West. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so you've read the article's Adaptations section then...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)