Talk:Casino Royale (novel)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk • contribs • count ) 10:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Still one of my fave Bond novels, but I'll try not to let that influence me to be either too hard or too easy in this review... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, cheers Ian! Annoyingly I'm away from Sat 17 until Tuesday 20 and then from 26th to Oct 1, but I'll update in between and when I return - I hope this is OK!  Cheers -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Technical review
 * Dab links: None (no action required)
 * External links: Some warnings only (no action required)
 * Alt text: Not present (not strictly required however)

Prose/content
 * Performed a copyedit for grammar and to cut some repeated words, however still some things I'd like you to look at:
 * Style point first off: unless you something I don't about MOS (entirely possible, BTW!), why have the quotes from Fleming and Benson in italics? Suggest using the same formatting as the passage from the book re. the vodka martini.
 * I think you're quoting excessively (except in the Reception section, where quoting directly from reviewers is appropriate). While I understand the temptation to quote because the source expresses things in a neat way and/or you don't want to just change a word or two and risk being accused of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, too much can look a bit lazy. I'd suggest you go over everything before the Reception section and see if you can't put into your own words more of the things you're quoting. No need to eliminate all of them, particularly if the source is a notable person or the quote is really apt, but try to achieve a better balance between your words and your sources'.
 * In the Reception section there are too many instaces of "so-and-so thought..." There are variations you can use for "thought", such as "considered", "felt", "believed", or "opined". You could also say "according to so-and-so..." or "in so-and-so's opinion..." Of course that doesn't mean you can only use "thought" once, but try to sprinkle some of these other terms in there between them...
 * I notice you have other Bond novels up for GAN, so suggest you consider reviewing them and perhaps rejigging based on the above points, when this nom is complete.
 * All ✅ - I'll follow up with the subsequent novels over the weekend and then when I'm back online as I'm out of internet range for the week - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Made a few more changes myself but happy with your additions and with changes to wording in the review section. Re. the quotes, I think the balance is much better now, and you've still managed to keep most of the best ones intact. However I believe you should attibute those you have left -- not necessarily the ones of only a couple of words, but the more extended ones. You've done this with the quote by Lycett at the beginning of Characters and themes; suggest you do it for all the authors of your longer quotes as well. ✅ I think I should have covered them all now, but please let me know if I've missed one (or doubled up on one!) Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks mate. Heh, I realise now that where you attribute a quote to notable person (i.e. one with a linked WP article), and especially to a very well known one (e.g. Hitchins or Amis), you may not need to identify them with a profession. Sorry I didn't clarify that before -- I'd say leave the ones you've done except for Amis -- he's famous enough...!
 * I'll leave them in - including Amis - as with the standards of modern education I'm sure he's not mentioned outside university courses nowadays! ;) - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing I noticed first time round but forgot to highlight here was Childhood friend Brett Hart was the basis for the novel, including a trip to Lisbon that Fleming and the Director of Naval Intelligence, Admiral Godfrey, took during World War II en route to the United States. -- This is phrased awkwardly; how is Hart the basis for the novel? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC) ✅ Thought I'd cleared that one before as it is a legacy from before my edits: now re-written and (hopefully) clearer. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That helped, though it still needed a bit of finetuning...! Also there seems to be a contradiction. If Fleming claimed that he was cleaned out, and Admiral Godfrey said this was fantasy, shouldn't the last bit be "...Fleming only played Portuguese businessmen and that afterwards he fantasised about German agents and the excitement of being cleaned out by them", rather than "cleaning them out"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of, but I may have convoluted the telling of it: Fleming claimed to have played Nazi spies and lost. Godfrey said F played Portuguese businessmen and lost, but that subsequently F had fantasised about beating Nazi spies. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I think then better just say "...Fleming only played Portuguese businessmen and that afterwards he fantasised about German agents" and stop there -- I'm just concerned that others will see this as an error in the article if you leave in the contradictory "cleaning them out", even it it's in the source... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Structure
 * Seems to follow the broad requirements of the MOS for novel articles.

Referencing
 * You seem to have used a broad range of sources and cited them meticulously, which is great.
 * I'm a little dubious about commanderbond.net as sole reference for the unproduced stage play. While it's not a huge deal at GA level, it would come under deeper scrutiny at FAC -- couldn't a more obviously reliable source be found?
 * ✅ (sort of!) I've left it in there for the quote, but added a cite from Benson's own site as well as back-up
 * That's fine by me for the purposes of this review, at least, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Supporting materials
 * Fair use seems applicable for the sole image used, i.e. first edition cover.

Summary
 * This is a nice effort with good depth of research. If you can look to the comments above, particularly the over-quoting and the wording re. what reviewers "thought", I'm sure I'll have no problem passing for GA in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The use of Template:Rquote does not conform to the 'Template documentation' which says "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text." and goes on to recommend more appropriate templates to use. maclean (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC) ✅ -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, happy to pass this now, tks for all your hard work, Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great - many thanks Ian for your help - nice review process to! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)