Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be taking this one. Full disclosure, once I've done my review, I'm going to ask another user to look everything over, since this is only my second review, and the first one in a very long time. Also note that I have not read the book and am not a literary critic. If you're detecting a faint lack of confidence, you're spot on. That being said, let's go!

Please do not respond to the review in the review, respond to it below the review. Numbering based on the criteria.

1. Needs copyedit
 * - I recommend you take this to the GOCE for a copyedit. There are some awkward sentences, some missing commas, and other minor fixes. If you mention that it's in the middle of a GA review, they generally fast track the review.
 * - Okay, I preformed a copyedit myself, and have a few things that need clarification. Please note that I'm very comma heavy in my writing, and while it's correct, it's not a common style. Feel free to revert back to colons and semicolons if you decide that's better.
 * - "Bond learns that Scaramanga plans to eliminate him when the weekend is over." does "him" refer to James or Fenix?
 * - "The first time this happens, is when Bond sits in a car behind Scaramanga and the method of killing is compared to that used by both the KGB and Nazis; according to Black, Bond has to rise above their actions." I feel this is written very awkwardly, but I don't know enough about the scene to reword it.
 * - "For the first time in the Bond canon, M's full name of "Admiral Sir Miles Messervy KCMG" was finally revealed. Despite being the target of the failed assassination attempt, not only does M not press charges against Bond, he sends him out on further missions." Can you add a sentance showing why this is significant? It seems kinda just 'out there' on its own like that.
 * - "Similarly, the secretary of the Royal St George's Golf Club, Mark Nicholson, gave his name to the CIA representative at the hotel." - This is worded awkwardly. How did MN 'give' his name? Was there consensus to this, or did Fleming just borrow the name? Was the full name or only the last name taken?

2. Fails ?
 * - There is not a single source in the "Plot" section. The section needs to be adequately sourced. The rest of the sourcing looks fine to me.
 * - I'm going to have to ask the person who takes the second look at this one. I didn't see anything in the guideline that said that sources weren't needed. As I said above though, I'm not an expert in this area.
 * - The above aside, the sources look reliable. Because they're all books, I can't really check for plagiarism or close paraphrasing though, which while I don't suspect to be the case, is supposedly customary during these reviews.
 * - CorenSearchBot, not surprisingly, found nothing.

3. Question
 * - Are the two themes the only ones that are written about? I honestly find that rather surprising. If there are other themes, they should be expanded upon.
 * - It dosen't feel right, but Bond books is what you do, so I'm going to have to trust your judgement on this.

4. Okay
 * - I was a little concerned about the reviews, but it looks like you struck a balance between good, mediocre, and bad. I'm not sure if I can agree with the statement "although much of the criticism was muted." having read the selection of reviews though. If anything that statement is being too kind to the author.
 * - Okay.

5. Okay
 * - Very stable.

6. Okay, but point three could use addressing
 * - I removed File:James Bond 007 pistol toy.jpg, it's a non-free image and the object is not discussed in the article (therefore it can't be in the artilce per the WP:NFCC.
 * - I tweaked the Goldeneye image caption, adding the word "estate". This is because the image depicts the house on the estate, and because the first thing anyone things when they hear "Goldeneye" is the movie, so this is confusing without "estate"
 * - I reworded it again. Do you like that better?
 * - It's not a requirement, but please consider adding alt texts to the images. It might be a requirement in the future (if Wikipedia gets serious about accessibility), and anyways it's a kindness.
 * - Thanks.

This is it for the first round, I guess.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1 I'll get a copy edit done, so no issue with that one.
 * Copy edit now done - see the notes below. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - Done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - Done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - Done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - There's nothing more I can add to this without going too far from the sources and into the murky waters of WP:OR. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - Done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

2 You're right that there's no sources in the plot section: as per WP:PASI no sources are needed to cover plots in either novels or films as the book (or film) acts as a primary source.
 * - See WP:PASI, which lists "the plot itself" in the list of "Examples of information available in primary sources include:" Don't worry about that section: it's fine for both novels and films (have a look at some GA or FA novels and films for confirmation on this), although if you're also asking advice from an experienced reviewer, they should also be able to confirm this. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

3 As to themes, yes: there are only two. These are thrillers without much in the way of back plots etc and the only two themes identified are those that have been outlined.
 * -I've been over the source books again and there is not a shred of anything else that I could use in this section, I'm afraid, even tenuously! It's a poor book by comparison with his others and very thin in many ways - plot, characterisations and this also includes themes too: very much the book of a dying and dispirited man. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ )
 * -I've done a little more work on the themes section. I've not added any further themes (as I can't find any!) but I have strengthened what is there as much as I can, within the confines of the sources. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

4 The reviews are muted in their approach: this is taking into account the full review, not just the quoted lines. It's also as compared to the reviews provided on all the Bond books.

5 -

6 Images
 * - OK
 * - I'll accept this, but only just. The house is also called Goldeneye and there is no reason why it should not stand as such, rather than having the "estate" after it. If anything more should be made of the fact, so that those who would be confused because of the film's name learn where it came from. All said, I'll leave it how you've edited it.
 * That's much better - a good compromise. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - Alts are now in place

I'll update as and when new actions occur, such as the copy edit. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made additional comments above. They're double indented instead of single indented.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All good now. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if anything new pops up. Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Peer review
 * 1) The grammar, spelling and punctuation is correct. As for its layout I'm not familiar with the MOS for books, but there seems to be no general MOS oversights here. I don't know if the article has been copy-edited since the request above, but it comes across as a well-written article to me.
 * 2) The article is comprehensively sourced, and once a few citation issues have been sorted then it will sail through on this front. To address a point above, the source material (i.e. film/play/book) serves as an adequate primary source for giving an overview of the content, provided there is no interpretation by the editor. The plot as it stands meets the requirements in that regard.
 * 3) I agree with the reviewer that the themes section is a bit light on the ground and generally not up to the standard of the rest of the article. Do the sources used to highlight the themes covered in the last paragraph of the themes section expand on their observations at all? I appreciate that sometimes thematic analysis can be a bit light in mainstream literature, but it would be good if we could move this section up a notch though. That said, the GA criteria only require we include what has been published, and sometimes these assessments can fall into the trap of demanding something that hasn't been published, so if the books don't expand any further on the themes then it clearly satisfies the GA criteria of being "broad in its coverage".
 * 4) The critical reception section is well balanced, the article is stable and the one FU image in the article has a rationale so no worries on that front.

I think it will meet the GA criteria once the issues I have tagged have been addressed. The only section of real concern is the themes section, but if there really is nothing more we can add to the section I'm happy for this article to be awarded GA status. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

PR response


 * 1 - Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 - these have all now been sorted - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 3 - A fair comment on the themes and as a result I've worked the section about as much as I can, adding a few bits here and there. Adding anything more would take it outside the sources, but I'm hoping that the new additions, even though small in themselves, should make a difference in impact. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 4 - Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall I think all these points have now been covered, both in terms of the GA review and the PR. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed as promoted.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)