- Article is no longer a featured article
Review commentary
editThis article seems to be a jack of all trades, and yet a master of none. For starters, both of the main sections of the novel do not satisfy criterion 2b. The novel section, the best of the two, does not provide much of a commentary of the critical reception of the novel, and the legacy of it, but that's not my main niggle. The film section is really, really lacking. It starts off with a fairly comprehensive section on the production, though it probably should be split up a little. The Plot is fine, but the Cast section is horrible, should be looking more like that of Casablanca (film), and crew is not required. The soundtrack should have it's own article, and for some reason, there's a trivia section in a FA. Also, whilst in the header of this section there is detail about the financial success of the film, there is nothing about the reception from fans and from critics. There is also no info about any Home Video release of the film.
In my opinion, the Film section should be split from the rest of the article, with what's left behind constituting a reasonable FA (apart from what I mentioned), but the film section in no way conforms with the manual of style set about by other film articles. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above totally. The film should be separated from the novel and have their own articles, as well as the soundtrack. It tries to be all things to all people, so is totally unfocused. A consensus of editors should come to a decision and execute the above plan of action. Also there is no info about its reception from fans and critics. Night of the Living Dead, as well as Casablanca (film), are examples of what this article should look like. The novel also lacks an infobox, and does not detail what inspired Ian Fleming in writing this novel, and how long it tokk him, and so on. LuciferMorgan 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Split - another jack of all trades article. Split into a good Novel article and a goods Film article. They are substantially different works using very different mediums. Both have significance. Not helped by the fact that that a unified approach is confused by the second film treatment having a different title, "Never say, never again". The Novel article should stand on its own with reference to other addaptations. Two film articles should exist with comparison sections to discuss the adaptation differences. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Split - as per User:Kevinalewis. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 23:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Split per User:Kevinalewis, as they are two different works, despite the novel's "origins" as a film vehicle. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well, the article has been split, and I think what exists is fine as an FA, but the Film article is a long way away. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I still object to the splitting of any of the Bond film/novel articles (and yes I'm speaking as a major contributor to them). However now that they've been split I see nothing wrong with the two halves. My questions are -- 1. which article retains the FA status or does the fact two articles have now been created disqualify it from retaining FA status and 2. If this was such a big concern to people, how did the Thunderball film/book article receive FA status in the first place? 23skidoo 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
edit- Main FA criteria concerns comprehensiveness (2b) and focus (5). Note that the article has been split into components. Marskell 16:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Better since the split, but not well referenced, still needs work. Sandy 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The split made the article better. Thunderball is clearly a better article than Thunderball (film), so it is the only article of the two that should remain a FA. It does however need more references. --Maitch 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It should probably be retitled Thunderball (book) and the old source become a disambig. See Thirteen Days, for instance. How drastic was the makeover? I almost wonder if it should go back to FAC. Marskell 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the proposed retitling and the creation of a disambig. I think that the majority of people are looking for the film, so it seems wrong that it goes straight to the book. --Maitch 10:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I also think the movie is likely to be the more popular search, and that Thunderball should be the disambig. Also, Remove. The article on the book can probably go back on FAC with a little more work. Andrew Levine 13:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the proposed retitling and the creation of a disambig. I think that the majority of people are looking for the film, so it seems wrong that it goes straight to the book. --Maitch 10:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Remove: More than two weeks in FARC, still not thoroughly cited. For example, the Bond Battle Royale Section details legal action, which should be amply cited. Sandy 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Remove as per Sandy. And it's disappointing to see a treadmill-sentence right at the top: "The novel was first published on 27 March 1961 and stands, technically, as the first novelisation of a James Bond screenplay, even though at the time it was written and published, no such film had yet been produced." Tony 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Post-removal comment from intrested administrator
editI would like to state on the record that I believe this article would not have been removed from Featured Article status had the Wikipedia not insisted on the article being split in the first place. I protest the split and its removal in the strongest possible terms and am strongly considering resigning as an administrator and as a Wikipedia contributor due to this (and other unrelated) issue. 23skidoo 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)