Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2024 [1].

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is the only non-Bond novel that Ian Fleming wrote. He did so shortly after suffering a heart attack and while he was supposed to be convalescing. Although he planned to release a story a year, he never saw this first one published, dying two months before it hit the shops. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Tim riley

edit

Had my say at the peer review, and on rereading for FAC I see nothing to add. Happy to support promotion to FA. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments - they were much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

edit
  • Oh, I loved this movie growing up!
  • cliff hanger - just to confirm, no hyphen in the original?
    There isn't, but as we're able to make minor typographical corrections, and as it's hyphenated few words later, I've added one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been any commentary on how subsequent adaptations have abandoned the novel's names and styling for the film's (as in the sequels being Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and not Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang)?
    Nothing at all - they just disappeared without anyone saying anything. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roald Dahl - If I remember my history correctly, he and Ian Fleming had been friends. Is there any discussion of this, and the role of their friendship in his adaptation of the novel? (And, of course, would it be a weight issue if anything were included here?)
    There is passing reference to the fact they knew each other, but nothing about any possible impact it had on Dahl's work. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some small edits; please review.

Overall, nothing but nit-picks from me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Chris, much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

edit

I'm an uncultured millennial who's never seen the movie or read the book, but put me down for a review nonetheless :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the story was one that he had created for his son, Caspar, as a bedtime story" - could probably simplify to "he had created it as a bedtime story for his son, Caspar" or similar
  • Since you're linking other things in the synopsis, perhaps also touring car and bonnet (car)
  • "that character James Bond" reads a bit awkwardly. "the character" maybe?
  • " six-cylinder aero-engine from Maybach. The engines" singular, then plural
  • "One important aspect of the car was its sound, which was "almost as important as the appearance"," bit redundant, this sentence could be simplified
  • 2nd para of Critical reception overuses "avuncular" a bit, can it be written around?
  • In the same para, sentences 2 and 3 both start with "X praised"
  • "Three sequels to the book have been written by Frank Cottrell-Boyce." Passive voice here
    I think it's okay in this context - the subject is the book, so we focus on that first, rather than the writer. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might reorganize the Adaptations section a bit. Right now, the first half of the para is about adaptations of the original, two contemporary and one 2011. Then the latter half is about the sequels. Then we jump back in time to 1968 to deal with the film, then we close out with the 2002 musical, which precedes the sequels.
    I was going (broadly) for 1. Books; 2. Film; 3. Play, rather than a chronological run-through, with the first para (broadly) about the Fleming story and follow-ons, and the other two paragraphs about the non-Fleming adaptations, but let me rework it a little and see if I can improve it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved to a strictly chronological runthrough now. How does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me, very little to pick at here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMC, just a little nudge on this one - although no obligation to add a !vote either way if you don't want to. - SchroCat (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, sorry! For some reason I thought I had replied to this already. Looking good to me, I'm a support. (And I do intend to get to the libels GAN this week). (PS, if you have time, I could use some more eyes at the McQueen Nihilism FAC). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC. Nihilism is on my list, and I should be there in a couple of days at most. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

edit

Loved the book as a kid, but haven't thought about it for decades! Just a couple of things:

  • "to necessitate hospitalisation and convalescence, which Fleming undertook at the Dudley Hotel in Hove" it's a bit unclear whether the hotel was the site of hospitalisation and convalescing, or just the latter. Also, "undertook" is a bit clumsy, would personally simplify to "hospitalisation, after which Fleming convalesced at the Dudley..." or similar.
  • That paragraph in particular contains so many "Fleming"s that my brain has done the thing where it starts considering a word as a collection of letters instead of an actual word, but I'm not sure if you can remove any and retain intelligibility. See what you think.
  • Why does the article primarily use Trog and not Fawkes?
I think he's probably better known as Trog (at least in the UK), as that's his common professional name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Nice article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks AirshipJungleman29. The first two points sorted (although let me know about the second of them) and the third answered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work which I gladly support. (If you have the time/inclination, any comments on another FAC of mine would be much appreciated.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this. I shall certainly pop round Chagatai Khan shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Is "The Man who Supercharged Bond: The Extraordinary Story of Charles Amherst Villiers." cited by anyone? That ISBN also says that it was published in 2010, not 2009. I am pretty sure I have reviewed the other sources here already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's cited by anyone (at least, not on the searches I have done). The book itself says 2009 on the imprint page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "whistle-like sweets". What does this mean? A few words of explanation would be helpful.
  • "the author Ian Fleming had published nine books". "The author" is superfluous and he was the author not the publisher.
  • "Legal difficulties before publication lead to a hearing". led rather than lead?
  • Illustrations. More details of the illustrations would be interesting.
    They would, but none of the sources deal with them as art, just the background on Burningham being used, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication history - maybe add the number of pages in the three volumes and the single volume.
  • In the lead you say the radio version was on Radio 4 Extra, in the main text Radio 7
  • A first rate article - just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, as always Dudley; these have all been dealt with (with the one exception) in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (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/Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang/archive1&oldid=1252138474"