Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Live and Let Die (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Live and Let Die (novel)

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This was Ian Fleming's second stab at novel writing, following Casino Royale, which still hadn't been published at the time of writing. It's not Fleming's strongest book (or one of my favourite's either, come to that), but it laid some solid groundwork for his later books. A high-quality cast turned up for PR, both formal and informal, following a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Gave this a good looking over recently and I believe it is worthy of promotion. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc - your comments were extremely helpful in tightening things up in a few places. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support For some reason, I know your motto with the Bond books is "When you've got a job to do, you've got to do it well." And this one deserves the Featured star! igordebraga ≠ 14:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Igordebraga! Much appreciated - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm still a little concerned about the length of your paragraphs in the Themes section, but your reply was sufficiently convincing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Images are okay - I checked them during PR, and things haven't changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Crisco - for both the words and image checks: much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN52 should include the article's page range rather than just the first page
 * FN78 is missing publisher
 * Some books include locations, others don't
 * Check alphabetization of Sources - why is Benson before Bennett? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Nikkimaria - all now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I was among the peer reviewers. I had one remaining concern after the PR (I queried an attribution to Noël Coward) but I find on checking the biographies that my concern was unfounded. Happy to support this article. It is as well illustrated as imaginable given copyright constraints; the text is comprehensive but concise, well-proportioned, clear, highly readable, and has wide and thorough referencing. –  Tim riley  talk    07:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim for your usual sterling work at PR which strengthened this admirably (as well as your later drug(s) advice!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A commendable effort.....
 * Comments from SNUGGUMS
 * In the lead (as well as "publication history"), "US" should probably read "United States" in full; not everyone is going to automatically know what those initials stand for. Also, is there any particular reason "London" is used as opposed to England when the other locations are given as countries?
 * London is given as a specific location and no-where else in Britain is mentioned, as opposed to the US, where the multiple locations, and Jamaica where the location is vague. - SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In "background", try to be more specific than "early 1952"; a month would be more helpful. Also, "the journalist" isn't really needed.
 * I'll add "Between January and March", but I think it may be a bit over specific; I'm not sure about losing "the journalist" - it places him as a professional writer of sorts, (although not of novels). We need something there to give brief context. - SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure it's necessary to have "publication history" and "critical reception" under one combined section
 * The Publication History is too short to stand on its own really – it would just be too stubby. This is the same for,at used in the recently passed Casino Royale (novel) article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In "publication history", I would place the time frame from "In October 1957 Pan Books issued a paperback version" towards the end
 * That might cause more problems than it solves: the first para is for the UK and Ireland, the second covers the US, so we'd then have to go to a third to cover the British paperback release, which is too short for a para. - SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In "Critical reception", it seems vague to only state "the reviewer"; I'd include their names if available
 * They're not mentioned, unfortunately – all names are mentioned where they are included. - SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In "adaptations", I don't think it's necessary to mention Sean Connery or George Lazenby since they didn't star in the film adaptation
 * This was added as part of the PR. I think the rationale is that we mention this is the eighth film, but Moore's first, so who did the previous seven. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH I don't think you even need to mention how many Moore starred in Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree: that was a very recent addition by a third party – I'll remove. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you did, though I fail to see how Connery and Lazenby are relevant to the film adaptation of this novel (as opposed to the ones they starred in) when they weren't included Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not FA-material at the moment, but is very close Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 02:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your thought – they are much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good now after another read-through, I can now support. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

_ response from --Laurencebeck (talk)

London is used very limitedly as a locale for the novel — it is only CHAPTER II __ INTERVIEW WITH M. And is in the literary device of a flashback to ten days earlier to put into perspective the New York arrival and subsequent procedures for Bond in CHAPTER I __ THE RED CARPET.

The London we see is the distance from James Bond's flat in Chelsea, SW7, inner South West London, to a "gaunt high building" in Regent's Park, NW1, inner North West London, driven by Bond in his "grey Bentley convertible, the 1933 4 1/2-litre with the Amherst-Villiers supercharger." Fleming does not say directly that London is covered in fog but writes, "He had turned on the twin fog lights and had driven gingerly . . " The London of Live and Let Die, such as it is when used as locale, is fog bound.

After arrival in NW1 the remainder of CHAPTER II is the briefing of Bond by M which is given as "The British Secret Service agent James Bond is sent by his superior, M, to New York City to investigate . . . "

London does not appear as a locale again in the novel, nor does England, nor Great Britain, nor the United Kingdom. It may have occasional reference used in a sense as metonym or synecdoche.

CHAPTER III continues with the adventure in New York. --Laurencebeck (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your point is: we mention that London is a location. I've removed the quote you added - something so long is a copyright infringement I'm afraid (like many of the long quotes you've added to your talk page). - SchroCat (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a direct question from *SNUGGUMS – who had commended your effort – which I saw to take to answer.


 * Comments from SNUGGUMS
 * A commendable effort.....
 * "In the lead (as well as "publication history"), "US" should probably read "United States" in full; not everyone is going to automatically know what those initials stand for. Also, is there any particular reason "London" is used as opposed to England when the other locations are given as countries?" ( my bold fonting ) --Laurencebeck (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then next time could you please make it a little clearer that you are responding directly to him, othwise it looks like a comment to the nominator for action on the article. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I disagree about the US having to be rendered as "United States"; this is one of the things that pretty much any speaker of English learns within their first few years studying the language. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I entirely endorse that. Brianboulton (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Commnets from Brianboulton
Leaning to support : I was an active peer reviewer, but as usual there are a few points which I either missed or which have arisen in the text since my review:


 * General: There should be hatnotes directing readers to the film and the song of the same name. Oddly, the first Google page when you search for "Live and Let Die" lists the film and the song but not the novel.
 * Lead: suggest reword "US sales, upon the novel's release a year later..." to " US sales, when the novel was released there a year later..."
 * Plot: "Mr Big decides to release Bond" is followed almost immediately by "Bond escapes". Seems contradictory
 * Plot: "Mr Big is smuggling gold by placing it in the bottom of fish tanks holding poisonous tropical fish." This does not seem to describe a smuggling method, unless something like "which he then ships abroad" is added to the sentence.
 * Background: The word "still" in second line seems redundant.
 * Background: "and then on to Jamaica" → "and then flying on to Jamaica"
 * Plot inspirations: Two marginally relevant images, facing each other and squeezing the text. If they were both significant to the article, well and good, but as it is I think I'd get shot of one.
 * Characters: a small point, but the phrase "come[s] across as" is repeated fairly closely
 * Characters: "his genuine liking for Jamaicans, who he saw..." I'd like Mr Riley's view on this, but "whom" seems more natural
 * I think you're probably right, and I've tweaked accordingly, but pinging for confirmation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Whom" is certainly grammatically correct, though the informal use of the nominative doesn't bother me (just as "It is I" is correct but "It's me" is fine by me).  Tim riley  talk    16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Themes: "to protect America from the Soviets who are working through the Black Power movement" - suggest reword: "to protect America from Soviet agents  working through the Black Power movement".
 * Friendship: This reads clumsily: "The more  complete characters profiles created by Fleming more clearly showed..."
 * Publication history: I don't think we normally use the term "release" to refer to a book's publication – although I could be wrong.
 * Adaptations: As the film is only "loosely based" on the novel, I'm not sure it's necessary to summarise the film plot.

Nothing of great significance here. In general the article is tidily put together and I look forward to fully supporting when the necessary tweaks are completed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Brian. All tweaked according to your suggestions. Thanks again for your thoughts here and at PR. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: Nice work. Just as a matter of interest: the "adaptations" section refers to "the keel-hauling sequence", which is not specified in the plot section unless you are referring to Bond and Solitaire being dragged over the  reef – which is not keel-hauling as I understand it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Brian. You're probably right on the keep hauling (which I understand is beng hauled under the boat, along the keel from one end to the other, rather than being dragged behind); the term came from the source that was cited, and which I unthinkingly used. I'll swap it out for something more accurate. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: Excellent piece of work, SchroCat. Hope to see it as an FA soon. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Ssven2 - your time and thoughts are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - I was unable to get to this as promised, but I have managed to have a read through today during a rare day off. This is a very highly polished article and it is worthy of FA status in my opinion. Owing to the distinguished visitors before me there is very little for me to nit pick. Great little article!  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Cass - your time and thouhts are always appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.