Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moonraker (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 15:22, 12 September 2015.

Moonraker (novel)

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Moonraker was Ian Fleming's third novel, following Casino Royale and Live and Let Die, the latter of which had not been published at the time he wrote this story. A high-quality cast turned up for PR following a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:MoonRakerFirst.jpg: source link appears to be dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Nikkimaria, now replaced. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Support – I was among the peer reviewers, and found very little to quibble about then, and am having even more trouble finding anything now, but here's one: the pictures could do with Alt-text. Perhaps the repetition of "British" in the first line could be avoided by changing "the British author" to "the English author". That's all I can offer. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. This is shaping up into a formidable series of top-notch articles on the Bond canon.  Tim riley  talk    10:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim. Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian

 * Support:, this article exceeds Featured article criteria and it is well-researched and well-written overall. I really had to dig deep and grasp at straws to find comments for improvement. With that said, I only had suggestions to offer outside the criteria for Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian   (talk)  12:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * May thanks, West Virginian! Your thoughts are very welcome, and much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support -- with just one comment:
 * "Drax was physically abnormal—as many of Bond's later adversaries were[37]—and is..." -- Would it be usual for the citation to come after the punctuation? I honestly am not sure about this because "Drax was physically abnormal—as many of Bond's later adversaries were—[37] and is..." doesn't look quite right either!  Cassianto Talk   17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Comments re prose. From the lead
 * bearing a cover based on Fleming's own concept - bearing is officious; "concept" of what?
 * its a good word, and not officious, but it's a moot point as you've tweaked the wording on this. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uniquely for a Bond novel, the story is set entirely in Britain. - no explanation
 * An explanation isn't really needed here (mostly because it's pretty self-explanatory), but there is enough to cover the lead, with the remaining detail in the body. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * caught cheating - CC - alliteration
 * Not particularly: for true alliteration it needs to be a first syllable homophone, whereas here the initial sounds of the words are distinctly different. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * destroying London with a nuclear weapon - coy
 * I'm not sure what's coy about that, but it's a moot point as you've tweaked the wording on this. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Suddenly "South African radio in 1956" which is not lead worthy. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was the first adaptation, so probably deserves a mention up top. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but If you are going to oppose, you do need to give some explanation: what on earth, for example, is" CC"? I also mildly disagree with your edits on the lead so far, and one or two of your comments here, but with such scant justification here, I'm afraid there is little I am prepared to do without you actually explaining the rationale for your opinion. – SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm being perfectly clear; the writing is disjointed and the tone muddled. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to admit Ceoil, I too am puzzled over the briefly written comments. The nominator isn't  asking for War and Peace, just a little elaboration.    Cassianto Talk   20:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're not being at all clear. I have given one clear question for you to explain, but you have refused. I've further questioned the individual points in the hope you can bring some clarity to your thoughts. I'm also going to put back the information you removed from the lead, as I'm not sure your edits were an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If ye both dont see problems with the passages I have highlighted, then thats the problem, and my oppose stands. Maybe ask for a copyeditor to run through for wording and coheriance. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What a shame; I'm an admirer of your work and I expected better.  Cassianto Talk   20:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Three experienced editors went through this at PR, and with my writing it works out at about 150 FAs between us. We're not novices at this and not utterly stupid. What I am not, however, is a flaming mind reader! If you do not care to enlighten us with the wisdom of your thoughts, the delegates will take that into account when assessing the article. I'm happy to work with most reviewers, but not those who don't wish to take the rather basic step of explaining specifics. I'll happily work with you to further improve the article, but you do have to explain a little more. – SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Ceoil's "CC" is meant to indicate that "caught cheating" is an alliteration, though of course it isn't. Ceoil's other comments seem to me inexplicable. I agree with Cassianto that this is disappointing in an editor of whom one has hitherto entertained a good opinion.  Tim riley  talk    21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept that I'm not being clear and it seams a little cranky and blunt. Thats not fair. Let me read through again, help, and try an articulate the problem I'm seeing - I would like the article to succeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great - many thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Supporting, given the work since my first reading. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Ceoil, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well, Ceoil's specific examples are surely confusing, but I see where he is coming from and like most of his edits. (I don't care for paperback release as the third sentence, for example.) Some things I noted:
 * The lead is short, and a bit stuttery. The plot is not summarized so well (at all?) in the lead before we are told that something "was added" to the plot; I am to understand that the first half of the book is about a bridge game. Not sure if that's accurate. The part about being set completely in Britain could be a lead-in to summary of the plot.
 * What don't you think is accurate? - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the fourth to star Roger Moore although the story for the film was significantly changed from the novel to include excursions into space is rough and "although" is not appropriate
 * It was smoother in the original version, and "although" fitted just fine in there. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the re-emergence of Nazism, Soviet communism and the "threat from within"—this part reads like a list of three things but "the threat from within" is relative to communism, I assume?, so clearer wording would make the connection between the last two obvious. If they aren't related, then my question is "threat from what?".
 * Not just from communism, no: I'll re-work this shortly, but the 'threat from within' is broader than specifically just the Russians. – SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I largely skipped a section a two... I won't revisit my comments here, but I hope feedback is better than just S/O or silence. I wanted to mention the items, some more significant than others, that interfered with my reading experience. Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * for information on the Second World War German resistance force, the Werewolves and German V-2 rockets—basically I'd make the same argument here that I made in the previous entry (The Werevolves are the resistance force, or another thing in a list? A comma could solve that.)
 * to discuss the traits of megalomaniacs; Strauss lent him the book Men of Genius, which provided the link between the condition and childhood thumb-sucking—lack of proper referent: megalomaniacs are people, so what does "the condition" strictly refer to
 * Fleming owned a cottage in St Margaret's at Cliffe, near Dover, and he went to great lengths to get details right, including lending his car to his stepson to time the journey from London to Deal for the car chase passage—I don't know how these two things relate to each other. In general, when I see the word "and" I see an opportunity to provide clearer transitions or to rearrange sentences and clauses for clarity
 * and combination of Boodles and the Portland Club—is an article (the, a) missing here?
 * used further aspects of his private life in the shape of his friends—maybe it's dialect difference but "in the shape of" is confusing where I live
 * She gives Bond the proper coordinates to redirect the gyros—"She" is not clear (enough) and in my area "proper coordinates to redirect the gyros" is easier as "[Brand gives Bond] coordinates that will redirect the gyros"
 * The Scotland Yard superintendent, Ronnie Vallance, made up from that of Ronald Howe,—Vallance is made up from something of Howe?
 * This was largely modelled on Fleming's own lifestyle, although the journalist and writer Matthew Parker sees this as showing a sourness in Fleming's character. Again, "although" does not seem to be contrasting anything, and I don't entirely know what that clause means. It sounds interesting but needs unravelling to mean anything to the average reader. "This" is often an opportunity to re-assert what you are referring to. It's not clear in this example, in context.
 * the perceived reserve shown by Brand to Bond was not down to frigidity, but to her engagement to fellow police officer.—"down to" may be another dialect thing? Obviously I can figure out what it means, but it sounds slangy if I assume it's proper English somewhere. "A" fellow police officer?
 * and for the first time in the series he is shown outside a work setting. It is never explained how he received or could afford his membership at Blades—if Blades is the example of M being portrayed outside work, there is an opportunity for smoother transition. For example, M is another character who is more fully realised than in the previous novels. For the first time he is shown outside a work setting, [doing something] at the Blades club. It is never explained how he received or could afford his membership there, ... This change gets rid of the "and"-avoidance theme I mentioned earlier.
 * on M's salary his membership of the club would have been puzzling, given reference in the 1963 book On Her Majesty's Secret Service it is revealed that M's pay as head of the Secret Service is £6,500 a year—this is very unwieldy to me—my only hope of turning it into a sentence is to assume "given" means "given that", but it turns out that doesn't fix anything.
 * a stylistic point—I don't understand. "A technique"?
 * at the end of chapters to heighten tension and pull the reader into the next—"chapters" ought to be singular since "the next" contrasts with "[the previous] chapter"
 * that leads the uncovering of a greater incident—"leads to"?
 * the card game acts an "introduction ..."
 * As with Le Chiffre in Casino Royale and Mr. Big in Live and Let Die, Moonraker involved the idea of the "traitor within".—Here, Moonraker is a story being compared to two characters
 * Directed by Lewis Gilbert and produced by Albert R. Broccoli;—comma instead?
 * and so Bond "becomes something more than a cardboard figure" than he had been in the previous two novels—doesn't scan—more than [the] cardboard figure" that he had been"?
 * Many thanks for your thoughts, most of which are minor typos to be corrected. I'll work through these shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've covered the relevant points here, although if you could clarify what you don't think is accurate in the lead, I'd be grateful. – SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

 * the re-emergence of Nazism, Soviet communism - The collocation implies that Soviet communism would re-emerge, when in fact it was still going strong when the book was written
 * Why include "Commander" in the lead?
 * kills Bond and Brand under a landslide, - "kills Bond and Brand under a landslide" doesn't convey to me that the assassin caused a landslide to kill them.
 * is engaged to be married to a fellow Special Branch officer. - Why not just "is betrothed to a fellow Special Branch officer." or "is engaged to a fellow Special Branch officer."
 * the Werewolves - Why the Easter egg? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All done, bar the last. I'm not sure this is an EE - it goes to the article about the German operation of which Drax was a fictional part. Do you have a suggestion for a better link? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the common English name is in German, it should probably be in German in the article (Crisco, signed out)180.246.177.243 (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Im really bad not sure on what would be the right wording on this, as the term is used as such in the primary source, and (I seem to remember, but haven't checked) in the linked article., as a military expert who knows the Bond series, what would be your thoughts on this? – SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax - That's a really long name, and a really long link. Any way to abbreviate it somewhat?
 * I've taken the title out of the link, which shortens that part. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The name of the Scotland Yard superintendent, Ronnie Vallance, was made up from that of Ronald Howe, the actual assistant commissioner at the Yard, and Vallance Lodge & Co, Fleming's accountants. - Lots, of, commas, and, clauses, making, the, sentence, hard, to, parse.
 * I've swapped some opf the commas for em dashes. I'm having a further ponder on this, as I think I can make it smoother, but my brain is a little slow this morning. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 30 Assault Unit, itself created by Fleming. - Since we're talking about an author here, I wouldn't use "Created", as it can imply a fictional unit. "Formed" or "established" perhaps. Also, I'd rewrite it as "the Fleming-established 30 Assault Unit" or something to avoid the numerous commas.
 * Amis considers that this is - perhaps "Amis considers this to be"
 * reminding readers of a familiar threat in 1950s Britain in the wake of the war. - I get the feeling this could be reworked. Personally I'd drop one of the two time clarifiers (either "in 1950s Britain" or "in the wake of the war")
 * Dibdin agrees, - with whom? The previous statement was a statement of fact
 * Drache - Why italicize if its his name?
 * Standardize whether you use the literary present or past tense in discussing themes ("the character Marc-Ange Draco's surname is Latin for dragon," vs. "Moonraker involved the idea of the "traitor within".")
 * Fleming's friend—and neighbour in Jamaica—Noël Coward considered Moonraker to be the best thing he had written to that point: - could be read as Moonraker being written by Coward
 * thought that "Fleming is one of the most accomplished of thriller-writers", and thought that Moonraker "is as mercilessly readable as all the rest". - thought ... thought
 * Perhaps "The novel was adapted as a daily comic strip that was published in the Daily Express newspaper and syndicated worldwide. The adaptation was written by Henry Gammidge and illustrated by John McLusky, and ran from 30 March to 8 August 1959." can be "The novel was adapted as a comic strip that was published in the Daily Express newspaper and syndicated worldwide. The adaptation was written by Henry Gammidge and illustrated by John McLusky, and ran daily from 30 March to 8 August 1959." to avoid having two "daily"'s in close succession — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Chris. All covered in the second batch. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Chris - as always your comments and thougts are spot on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support: Just a few issues (most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review):
 * Shouldn't the lead include at least a sentence dealing with the book's reception by critics and public? That strikes me as more important than reference to a radio adaptation in S. Africa or to the Daily Shit Express comic strip.
 * Also in the lead: trivial, but "The plot came about from..." might be better as "The plot is derived from..."
 * Also: "so as to include" could be just "to include"
 * I reworded the stuff around Ronald Howe and Vallance Lodge into what I considered a clearer format, without the distracting mdashes. Check it out, see if you agree.
 * "diastema": I'm not sure whether the correct usage is "a diastema" or simply "diastema"; you use both forms ("a large head and protruding teeth with a diastema" and "Fleming used this information to give Drax diastema..."). I think you need to be consistent.
 * The publication history might be slightly expanded. Do you know the size of the first impression? ABEbooks mentions 9,900, but there may be a better source. You might mention the number of successive editions and reprints to date, which would give an indication of the book's abiding popularity.  I note from ABE that Hodder and Stoughton published it in 1989, Panther in 1979, and that there are loads of Penguin editions, none of ehich are mentioned in your summary. Any idea about foreign language editions? I also see that an inscribed first edition is on sale for £55,000, if you've got a bit of spare cash.
 * I've added the 9,900 from a good source, but there are no good sources that deal with the specific publication details of this novel (I could pick a few details from the British Library's catalogue to highlight a few of the editions, if you think it worth it - although I think that level of detail may be better off as a foot note). There is a reference I have been able to use that says it's never been out of print, which I've added, but the sources tend to discuss the series as a whole, rather than individually. This the translations are described as happening for the whole series, and subsequent good sales, but nothing that I can pin down to Moonraker itself. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of the above should present problems (except maybe the £55,000) and I look forward to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Brian, I've addressed your comments, but if you have any further thoughts or suggestions—particularly relating to the publication history information—I'd be very grateful to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see the "never out of print" info – did you add it? You could include a sentence along the lines: "Since its inititial publication the book has been issued in numerous hardback and paperback editions, and has never been out of print", citing the first bit to here. Although I would not cite Goodreads as a reliable source for critical comment, it's OK to use it to establish that editions exist – I have used Amazon and ABE in this way in the past. I'll leave this with you – meanwhile I'm upgrading to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How odd... I made a couple of changes in one edit to that paragraph, but it doesn't seem to have saved. I've added your suggestion, with an extra bit on translations, as the Worldcat reference I've also added shows a few foreign language editions in there too.
 * Many thanks for your thoughts and comments, both at the PR and here - both are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Ref 61 needs a subscription tag
 * Inconsistencies in providing publisher locations. Mostly you do, but sometimes you don't.

Otherwise, all sources are of approraite quality/reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Brian. Both points dealt with, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS
Here's my assessment of the images: Very well-composed article overall. My only other concern is how all the images are aligned to the right; it would help to alternate the alignments so it seems less repetitive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * File:MoonRakerFirst.jpg has an appropriate FUR
 * File:Bundesarchiv Bild 141-1880, Peenemünde, Start einer V2.jpg is appropriately licensed
 * File:Boodle's.JPG is being claimed as own work, and I will AGF
 * File:White cliffs of dover 09 2004.jpg is appropriately licensed
 * File:Noel Coward 6 Allan Warren.jpg is being claimed as own work, though I'm not sure if portraits like this can be licensed as such and don't know how this picture really benefits the article to begin with
 * File:Sir Roger Moore 3.jpg is being claimed as own use, though I'm not sure if portraits like can be licensed as such
 * Many thanks Snuggums. The two photos by Allan Warren were donated to us by Warren, who gave us a stack of his images a few years ago, all cleared through OTRS at the time, so they are OK. I'll flick a few over to the left to break it up a little, which I'd overlooked before. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can now support. Happy to help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Snuggums, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld
Support Excellent work, seems an extensive review and input has ironed out anything I might have commented on! Only thing is that you might link Ernst Stavro Blofeld fully as it's currently a redirect.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Doc - now tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  15:22, 12 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.