Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)/GA2

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:52, 29 September 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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Hi SilkTork, Thanks for doing this. If you've got any questions, please let me know! Cheers -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * Considering how easy it is to introduce OR and POV into plot summaries, and yet how easy it is to source plot summaries, given the amount of publisher's blurbs and study aids there are for major novels, I am always surprised that we still don't feel a need to cite plots. However, this is an issue to raise elsewhere, not here. The plot summary appears to be very sober, appropriately detailed and well written.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Adaptations
I note you have de-listed the three adaptations into a different format. Although I do not have an issue with that per se, the other Bond novels I have recently edited (only one of which has been through the GA review to date) also have the Adaptations in a list format. Is there something in MOS that suggests a preferred option and I'll ensure that other articles match up with the chosen format. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The format is a WP:Def list, which is used when you have a group list such as the Adaptations section. The section is saying - here are a list of adaptations of the novel and some detail about them (if you can visualise a section as a list, then it fits a def list). This also gets around the problem of having very short sub-sections, which is discouraged in WP:BODY. Ah, looking at it again now, I see that Scenes used (1981 and 1989) is not actually an adaptation and would not (might not?) appear in a list of adaptations. The section might, on reflection, work better as a single section - that is, no sub-sections or def list layout. I'll leave it to you to decide on a single section or a def list; but I don't think having three very short sub-sections would be appropriate.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that - I'll probably go with the def list format as I think that works better than a single section. I'll adapt the other articles too.  Cheers -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bibliography. This section, unless I'm wrong, appears to be a mix of sources used in the article as well as suggested further reading, though it is not clear which is which. If that is the case, would you be able to separate out the sources from the recommended reading and put them in different sections. WP:FOOTERS offers some guidance.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Doing background research and I note that in The rough guide to James Bond (page 36) it says the book was banned in Ireland. More info here, including a quote from Lycett that he felt the banning helped the publicity for the novel.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On hold
This is a well written, informative and helpful article. It deals appropriately and succinctly with the topic, providing an adequate overview. I have two minor quibbles - the mixed bibliography, and the lack of coverage of the banning of the book in Ireland. I'll put this on hold until those matters are sorted. Give me a ping when they are done.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that. I've changed the Bibliography, splitting it into referenced books with a Further reading section.  I saw in Lycett about the banning in Ireland, but this is only obliquely referred to (the quote on the commanderbond.net page is about as much as there is) and so I left it out for safety's sake.  The only copy of the Simpson I have is the online version (with pages 30-38 not shown), so I can't use that one properly.  I'll dig out my Lycett this evening and get the right page reference to the version in the bibio and add something about it. Cheers again -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking into the matter further, it seems the book was banned by C.J. O'Reilly, a rather notorious member of the censorship board, who banned 76% of the books he read!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Pass
Yes, that's all good to go.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)