Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diamonds Are Forever (novel)/archive1


 * 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2015.

Diamonds Are Forever (novel)

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Diamonds Are Forever was Ian Fleming's fourth novel, following Casino Royale, Live and Let Die and Moonraker, the last of which had not been published at the time he wrote this story. This nom follows a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I reviewed this article at PR a few weeks ago, and it was very well-written and presented then. Having re-read the article today I see that's even tighter now. I tried to dig up a few nit-picks, but I couldn't find anything except super minor stuff that probably comes down to preference anyway. I still think the "china eyes" quote is off-putting, and I'm not sure what value it brings to the article, but I accept that I might be misreading that as culturally insensitive when it really isn't. Nicely done, SchroCat! Keep up the great work! RO (talk)  21:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks RO for your thoughts and comments both at PR and here. I'll bear the 'china eyes' point, and if others raise the point, I'll happily remove. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This was always one of my favourite Bond books. Just a few quibbles:
 * Plot
 * I might mention that Sierra Leone was then a British colony.
 * It might well be mentioned that Bond won heavily while disobeying his instructions. It was his way of goading the other side into action, as I recall. I doubt they would have cared as much had he lost.
 * It is unclear what Franks has earned a fee for.
 * "Plot Inspirations" lower case the I, I think
 * Characters
 * "and realign her to a more honest lifestyle" I would cut the "re" in "realign"
 * Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome, and I've adopted your suggestions. Thanks again. – SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Suggest citing pagecount just so it's clear which edition this refers to, as pagination is quite variable
 * I don't think Goodreads could be considered a high-quality RS given that it's user-generated - is another source available?
 * Since AuthorHouse is a self-publisher, what makes that book a high-quality RS?. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Griswold's work is classed as an approved reference book by Ian Fleming Publications, the family company of Ian Fleming and holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works. The work has been accepted by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion as a serious source and has been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009. The question was also raised Reliable sources noticeboard, who are happy enough, given the background).
 * A gentle reminder that you signed off on the source in a previous review. – SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I check a lot of sources and don't always remember responses - in those cases just a link to the previous review is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki – all sorted now. – SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Support – Another happy peer reviewer checking in. Little to quibble at then; nothing now (and Heaven knows I've tried) except for the infinitesimally minor point that there's a lot of tripping in the second sentence of "Plot inspirations". Sorry if I failed to spot that at PR. –  Tim riley  talk    16:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim, for your comments at PR, and the additional one here: I've de-tripped accordingly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I didn't get to the PR, so this is my review – mainly prose trivia, but also a few issues relating to the plot (perhaps if I'd read the book I'd be clearer). I have made a few minor prose/punc changes myself. I don't see any problem in dealing with the following issues, and look forward to supporting in due course:
 * Lead


 * "the non-fiction book" → "his non-fiction book"
 * I have a pedant's aversion to "firstly" except i a sequence, e.g. firstly this, secondly that. thirdly the other, etc. Could you drop the "-ly"?
 * Plot


 * "Bond must travel as far as possible up the pipeline of smugglers..." has an inelegant, vaguely obscene feel.  Think about it: perhaps "Bond must infiltrate the smugglers' pipeline" as an alternative?
 * Tiffany is described as a "go-between". Between who and who?
 * Second paragraph: some further clarification necessary. I assume that Bond is "earning his fee" by collecting his winnings after betting on a rigged horse race, but this is not immediately clear. Presumably Bond was complicit in Leiter's scheme to de-rig the race? Is "bribe" the right word to use in this context? Is it significant in any way that the thugs Wint and Hill are described as homosexual?
 * Sort of. It's one of the characterisations that made it through to the film (and is fairly well known because of it), and gives a bit of background for the information later on about the Boofy Gore naming. – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "he disobeys his orders" – orders from whom?
 * "Bond re-routes the train to a side line..." Quite difficult to do, I'd have thought, when on board the train. And how did a crash result from this manouevre?
 * "for precaution" would be better as "as a precaution", but I'd be inclined to drop this phrase altogether.
 * Final paragraph: I'm a bit bemused as to why Tiffany has waited until now to tell Bond what's going on, as she's been assisting him for quite a while now.
 * Recommend rephrase to replace all the "woulds". Thus: "It begins in Africa where a dentist pays miners to smuggle diamonds to him in their mouths; he extracts the gems ... From there, the dentist  takes the diamonds [to a] rendezvous with a German helicopter pilot. Eventually the diamonds  go to Paris and then on to London. There ... Tiffany   then meest a person to explain how to smuggle the diamonds to New York City".
 * Finally, what happens to the Bond-Tiffany relationship? Does it simply fizzle out?
 * Background and writing history


 * "he read a story in The Sunday Times..." followed by "He used the idea as a basis for the story..." It would be more accurate, I think, to rephrase the second part: "He considered this story as the possible basis for a new novel".
 * "New York state" – I think "state" should be "State", but ask an American.
 * There is a pipelink available for Books and Bookmen if you want it.
 * "Although Fleming provided no dates..." Suggest "provides"
 * Characters


 * " Bond falls in love with her, the first time he has done so since Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale" Delete "with her", or the sentence is ambiguous. Incidentally, you don't mention Bond and Tiffany falling in love in your plot summary, which is perhaps an omission.
 * "According to the literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek, Diamonds Are Forever, along with Goldfinger and The Man with the Golden Gun, has gangsters as antagonists, rather than as spies." Surely, this is a fact, not an opinion, which "according to" implies. You could say: "The literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek observes that..." or a similar formulation
 * "The writer Kingsley Amis, who later wrote a Bond novel..." You don't need "The writer" since you immediately cover this with "who later wrote"
 * Style


 * Confirm "interesting and musing" (not "amusing"?)
 * "Amis considers that while some of the changes in location are implausible, the novel is very tense in places." The two propositions (implausible locations and tension in places) are insufficiently connected to warrant a "while". Put another way, the degrees of tension in the novel are not related to the plausibility of the locations. I'd rephrase – or omit, as it adds very little.
 * Themes


 * The last part of the final quotation: "he, the American, takes orders from Bond, the Britisher, and that Bond is constantly doing better than he" does not parse properly.
 * Publication history

That's it! Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't books "published" rather than "released", which applies more to films?


 * Many thanks, Brian. I've adopted your suggestions in toto throughout. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Adopted in tot – wow! 100% compliance is not expected; I'm not Kim Jong Un, you know. Anyhow, I've made a few final minor tweaks to the plot section, and I think all is well now.  Brianboulton (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks as always Brian. Your input is always top drawer, and always hugely welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - leaning support, giving last read through tonight. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The main theme of Diamonds Are Forever is contained in the title and, according to Benson, used to contrast other, less permanent aspects, especially love and life I know I c/e'd this, but I'm still not getting it - the word permenent doest sit right, and it seems vague and shallow somehow.
 * Let me have a think on this. I wasn't happy about the wording when I wrote (and re-wrote) it in the first place, but I'll see if I can do something more suitable. – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Benson analyses Fleming's writing style and identified what he describes as the "Fleming Sweep": a stylistic point that sweeps the reader from one chapter to another using 'hooks' at the end of chapters to heighten tension and pull the reader into the next - sweeps seems to overstate; and I have read the novel, and yes it is a page turner; I just think this quote somehow understates the widespread prevelance of using hooks to move from chapter to chaper.
 * The problem is that I've not seen any of the sources talking about hooks, but we do have Benson talking about the sweep. I actually think that Benson's "sweep" probably is talking about the use of hooks, but he's just described it differently! – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It think its a bit ill informed and light weight honestly; maybe cut. Ceoil (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think I'll leave it in, but in a re-written form. – SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Support from me, though I expetct the above to be adressed, and will be revistting on minor issues. Ceoil (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Christopher Hitchens quote is astute and typlically plesant to read. I'd move it further up in the section.
 * Good idea: now moved,up to be the second point. – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding much else to complain about. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Ceoil – much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.