Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/On Her Majesty's Secret Service (novel)/archive1

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (novel)

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

OHMSS is one of my favourite Bond novels (and a favourite among many of the other Bond cognoscenti too). It's got a ridiculous plot, a semi-cliched bad-guy with an overblown mission to destroy Britain, and Bond beating all the odds and getting the girl - until the stomach punch at the end. All well-written and enjoyable tosh. Both and  were good enough to provide constructive criticism at the PR, but any further comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

UC
Driving by for now, expecting to expand to a full review later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Would File:On Her Majesty's Secret Service (8).jpg be a better image for Lazenby -- it's closer to the time and from the filming of the adaptation?
 * Much better! Thanks for that - and I look forward to your comments, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : not quite grammatical: double the total sales or similar?
 * : is Bond or Blofeld based there?
 * : I think further really needs some point of reference: further than what? Equally, I think it would be fine to simply cut the word.
 * : from where? Suggest "driving back from...", as you couldn't (then) drive all the way to Britain from anywhere.
 * : I think at a gambling table is less flowery (cf. for example he was slain by the sword vs he was killed with a sword). Do we know the game?
 * : could cut daughter and as obvious, given that we've used she and her for a while now. Would also help with repetition of daughter later.
 * : isn't this a tautology? Suggest picking one.
 * : according to the article, Piz Gloria is a restaurant: do we mean a (fictional) mountain by the same name?
 * Sort of the same thing. The fictional alp was Piz Gloria, as was the fictional building, as it the restaurant that was named after the film was set there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would clarify ("atop Piz Gloria, a fictional mountain," or similar): this is a rare case where the link necessitates more explanation rather than less. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : suggest allergies to food and livestock, as he wasn't curing them of their livestock.
 * : what does this mean, exactly?
 * : does the Faulks and Fleming citation explicitly link this practice to OHMSS?
 * He said it was the practice he followed for all his books. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : I'd give this another look for prose style.
 * I've put it into F's own words instead. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : suggest a rephrase per MOS:IDIOM (a reader might be forgiven for thinking they were kidnapped!)
 * : I don't quite understand the grammar here: it sounds as though Palmer is saying that F. didn't break conventions as such, but rather choose to follow/prioritise a different set of genre conventions (that is, of a thriller rather than a conventional adventure story).
 * : better as Fleming used the incident as the model for... or similar: one, it would be surprising if he forgot it, two, he could hardly have used it if he didn't remember it, three, active voice is to be preferred over passive, ceteris paribus.
 * : perhaps appropriately, the terminology here reads as a bit dated and, well, eugenics-y to me. I get that it's appropriate for the Nazis' own terms, but it's in Wikivoice. Something like "an institute for research into so-called 'race science'"?
 * : decapitalise, I think: "Major Jones entered the room" but "Jones was a major in the Welsh Guards", per the ever-confusing MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
 * : italicise or quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS (it's the name we're talking about, not the person by that name).
 * : comma after earlobes, but I must admit to not fully understanding antecedents: ancestors? Are we implying that Spanish people generally don't have earlobes?
 * : I know a Bond source quotes it, but I'm not convinced this is really in place in this article: I can see an argument for it in Drake's, or in Malfoy's, but not here, unless we think JKR took it via Fleming.
 * Why is Pol Roger italicised? It isn't in the eponymous article.
 * We might consider changing the title of this subsection to "Plot and character inspirations": I'm not sure characters' names and backstories really qualify as plot.

Done to the end of "Plot inspirations": more to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks l all either done or addressed above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Midway through "Characters" at the moment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A thought now: would "plot and character inspirations" be any worse as "inspirations"? Brevity is a virtue.
 * : simply about Bond's character?
 * It covers his character and his habits, rather than just his character. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (though, then, Bond's character and habits)? I'm not sure that the division implied by the text between Bond and Bond's character is really, well, real. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Bond's character and habits" is much better - fits the bill completely. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : the tense of he did  read slightly oddly to me: suggest something like: "it is revealed that he has been doing this every year since her death". Not as concise, granted.
 * : better as this emotional side, I think.
 * : quote marks are awry here.
 * Do we really need the title of Amis's work? We haven't given it for the others.
 * : present tense for fiction: perhaps simply Bond drinks far more alcohol in OHSS than he does in previous books?
 * All done, except the second point, about which I'm happy to discuss further. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * : does "culturally problematic" here mean "from Fleming's point of view", "from the perspective of F's culture" or "to readers in 2024"? I think a bit of expansion here would help.
 * Is her single quote to Bond (really) the only way in which this character (a self-destructive damsel in distress, "saved" by Bond's romantic charms) is culturally problematic?
 * : verbose: consider lists M-A D among...
 * : I imagine this is only half of the story: presumably, it's not the fact that he was in the war, but that he was on the right side of it?
 * : there seems to be something a little more going on here than simply noting his good looks -- I'm sure someone has picked up the homoeroticism here, or worked more generally on that theme in Bond?
 * It's not homoerotic: in this particular case it's about the 'spirit' of the Draco, rather than his physical looks. For the others, it's Fleming's shorthand of beauty=good/ugly=bad. One or two people have addressed it, but no-one (as far as I've read) has made a connection to homoeroticism before. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggest linking "Irma la not so Douce" to Irma la Douce, to help readers get the joke.
 * Le Chiffre and Mr Big (Mr.?) are introduced on second mention, as are the other characters (e.g. Drax) in the same sentence.
 * : Bond or Synott?
 * : we've generally done scholarship in the present tense so far: I'd continue that here.
 * Link Pinaud to Édouard Pinaud (or consider making a redirect)?
 * : it sounds as though this quote belongs to Burgess, but it turns out not to be fully attributed at all: the MoS says that all quoted statements of opinion should be attributed in text.
 * With the Faulks and Fleming citation: I assume we're generally citing Faulks' introduction rather than the story by Fleming? In which case, using contributor and contribution to indicate that would be useful.
 * : is there an echo of the "George and the Dragon" motif from the last Bond FA?
 * To my OR eye, yes, definately. There is in pretty much all the Bond stories, but Panek doesn't refer to it, and the others that normally do (Black and Benson), don't for this novel. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : I'm not clear on what this clause means or adds in context.
 * : twenty-first century British readers or similar?
 * : not quite grammatical (better as "states that gambling is a key theme of the novel, as it is...")
 * : I found this paragraph a slightly tough going for clarity. This particular sentence would be better as
 * : I think we need to be clearer that the second use of gamble is metaphorical (MOS:IDIOM, perhaps).
 * : I'm not sure this is quite grammatical.
 * : MOS:QUOTE would like double quotes here, or italics if you prefer.
 * : suggest changing one art/artist to illustrator/illustration to avoid the repetition.
 * : this could be read as meaning that TSWLM was 299 pages long and listed as an NYT bestseller.
 * : give a year here.
 * I would spell out NID in "Critical reception": it's been a while.
 * Could wiktionary link pro forma?
 * Similarly, could link willing suspension of disbelief
 * There are a few points throughout where information might be better moved into a footnote, as you have for Mortimer's innovations: Cox's pen name, for instance, perhaps the breakdown of those 280 copies of the first edition, possibly the brackets about the other two novels with economic disruption.
 * Not Cox – it's only there to explain why the reference is under the name Iles, so adding another footnote is a bit excessive. I think the 280 is better where it is. I've done the others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is not quite the same thing: Panek has gone from talking about fables to talking about fairytales: fairytales are often fables, but not all fables are fairytales. Suggest linking some or all of these fantastic creatures.
 * What exactly does "air assault" mean in the plot section?
 * I think this one is clear: it's an assault by air. I think most people will grasp it's meaning, but I've linked it to assist. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's me for now: as ever, I hope at least some of the above is useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All excellent, thank you. I'm working my way through the last two tranches at the moment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I've done all these now, but happy to relook if there are still any issues. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC
Nice to see this as a bluelink. Comments to come within the week, hopefully. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Technically this is within the week! :)


 * Lead
 * Spy Who Loved me had a footnote in the lead listing all the Bond books, why not do the same here? (I see it's used farther down)
 * Still to do this one. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "over 60,000 books sold" copies maybe? since you repeat "book" in the sentence's final clause
 * The italicizing of James Bond as a series isn't consistent (not just in this article; it appears to be inconsistent across the project, which is a nitpicky complaint that isn't strictly relevant to this FAC)
 * "Ian Fleming's James Bond series": no italics, which is in line with it as a descriptive title, but it is inconsistent with the title of that article (also not italicized in the infobox). But at the end of the paragraph, "James Bond film series" does have italics.
 * At the very least even if we don't sort the entire James Bond series italics thing project-wide, we should be consistent in this article (for what it's worth, I don't care which you go with)
 * As a side note, I realized at the end of the article that we only link James Bond the series in the lead and the infobox, never in the body. Deliberate?
 * OK, I've italicised for consistency. The MOS on the point was (when I last bothered to look at it), confusing and self-contradictory, which is probably why the usage varies across WP, as different people will have interpreted it accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's one of my least-favorite MOS sections.


 * Plot
 * If Bond doesn't believe Spectre exists anymore, why does he care about Blofeld?
 * Because he is still an arch criminal who committed a major crime. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He subsequently meets her at a gambling table, where he saves her from embarrassment and dishonour by paying the gambling debt she is unable to cover.
 * Gambling twice in one sentence
 * Not sure both "embarrassment and dishonour" is necessary, I think one or the other would suffice
 * "following day Bond follows her" swap one for a synonym?
 * I'm not sure the detail about Bond killing the Spectre ops is necessary, unless he usually doesn't kill people? It doesn't seem to come to much later so could probably be removed
 * Only to show that a. there's a reason why they're not following him; and b. it's a life and death chase and he's prepared to kill. I can take it out if you'd prefer though?
 * Eh, it's not my favorite but it's not a dealbreaker


 * Background
 * Is Pearson p. 398 a typo or am I just looking at a different edition? The one I'm looking at has this info on 308 (if it helps, it's here if you want to link in the bibliography)
 * That's a different edition to mine, which def has it on page 398. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure the source supports the sentence as written. Pearson writes that Fleming took "as much trouble as ever", but doesn't say how much trouble that was. At the least I think we could use a citation to another place where he discusses having trouble with other works, to support that this was an ongoing thing
 * Fair enough. Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Development
 * I might mention the avalanche in the plot, since it comes up here also
 * Like UC, I'm a bit hung up on the earlobes thing. The source says it's one particular family. Could we clarify that, because right now it sounds like we're saying all Spaniards lack earlobes.
 * I've removed the 'Spaniard' bit - it's a superfluous detail. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done down to here for now (except where said otherwise); the rest to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "Fleming also used historical references..." I think this sentence might bear splitting at "and"
 * Don't you think the two short sentences look a bit stubby like that?
 * I'm of two minds. It is a bit stubby split up, but together I don't love how it flows. Not worth wringing hands over though.
 * The final sentence of para 1 under Characters might work better in para 2, which discusses Bond's decline after Tracy's death in more detail
 * "alcohol intake has been estimated" by who?
 * "over four times the advisable" advised under what guidelines?
 * "The character of Tracy is not as well defined " written in wikivoice but appears to be Benson's opinion.
 * "The sociologist Anthony Synnott observes..." does he have any analysis of why this might be, or what it implies?
 * Only in terms of it being a literary shortcut "Attractive=good; good=attractive Vvs Evil=ugly; ugly=evil". I've moved around and merged the relevant paras slightly so this is clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Style and Themes
 * Para 1 of Style mentions "the hooks" as though the reader has been introduced to them, but they get introduced in para 2. I assume a casualty of revisions at some point, but could we reorder things?
 * for Themes, "in the other two" feels redundant, since we've already said there's 3 and we're about to list 2
 * "Reinforcing the availability of food and drink..." This sentence feels like it could use some simplification, especially with the semi-colon. "Book" and "novel" appear twice each. I feel like you could drop/revise the first clause entirely, or reduce some of the details in the second half, or split the sentence. If it were me I would go with something like "The literary analyst Elizabeth Hale considers the novel "one of the more food-oriented Bond books". Its extensive descriptions of meals, drinks, and culinary philosophy reinforce the theme of food as a luxury."


 * Publication and Adaptations
 * Minimal griping in Publication. In Reception, some of the logic for paragraph breaks is a little unclear. Why is Boucher's negative review paired with Doolittle's positive one? (Side note: I love getting to use "bemoan" or "complain" in reception sections. It's a nice change from "blah blah everyone loved it".)
 * In Adaptations, it's odd that we don't link to the James Bond film series

Okay, that's all I got. I may have to start reading Bond books now, if I'm going to keep reviewing these :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi PMC, I think I've covered all these now (except where stated otherwise) - although please let me know if I've missed any, of if you want to talk through any further! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Schro! Looking good to me, anything remaining is personal preference and nothing to hold things up over. Another great piece of work from you. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks PMC - much obliged as always,. I'll have another look at the 'historical references' sentence and see if there's anything better that can be done (probably, but it needs to sit in my subconscious for a while first!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ian
I'd like to have reviewed The Spy Who Loved Me, as I've read it and felt it was rather better than just an honourable failure, but time was against me. OTOH, OHMSS is one of the best books (and films), so I'll recuse coord duties and try to copyedit and offer a few comments shortly, and revisit as and when I can... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I find the two sentences beginning In common with Fleming's other Bond stories... a bit too much for the lead. The previous sentence is important but I'd have thought it could be incorporated into one of the other paragraphs.
 * Fleming thought his script was the best book he had written up to that point. -- Can we say "draft" rather than "script"? The latter term has filmic connotations that I think would confuse...
 * Check if you’ve linked on first use all the Bond villains you mention under Characters.
 * I have now, although only the major ones with their own article. The rest (Draco, Bunt, etc) all go to a list page, so I've not bothered with those. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That's it on a first run through -- great to see the Bond books' journey from GA to FA being resumed. I'll hold off support until a few others have had their say and we see how the prose settles down, and the image and source reviews occur (which I could undertake time permitting, we'll see) -- anyway well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Successive sentences: Black sees... Hale sees... -- Can we vary?
 * For Black, the individualism is also present in Bond's allies, particularly Draco, who is able to help Bond attack Piz Gloria because of his own and Bond's individualism allows the two men to help each other for a good common cause. -- Aside from the "of" being ungrammatical and two "helps", I'm unsure from this just how their individualism helps them make common cause...
 * The artist Richard Chopping once again undertook the cover art for the first edition. -- "Once again" might not be so helpful for the uninitiated, perhaps describe him as Fleming's usual first edition cover artist or some such?
 * Cheers Ian. I didn't think you'd be able to miss out on two Bond reviews on the trot! Your comments all sorted in these edits. Happy to work on them again or discuss the above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No prob, and your changes all look good although I wonder if we can still improve the Black/individualism bit. How does this work for you: For Black, the individualism is also present in Bond's allies, particularly Draco, who is prepared to help Bond attack Piz Gloria in part because of their shared rejection of authority. To explain, I thought the last bit of the previous version was a bit repetitive, and I chucked in "in part" because I think Draco would do almost anything to help Bond in return for effectively saving Tracy (up to that point!), not just because of their shared "values" -- of course if Black doesn't support "in part" we'd have to lose it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's within the constraints of the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:On_Her_Majesty's_Secret_Service-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always, Nikkimaria. Both these points addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Airship
My favourite film, and a great read too. Will comment in the next week. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde
I haven't read this one, but I look forward to reviewing it. Comments to follow, feel free to disagree with any copyedits I make as I read. That's everything from me; I expect to support on prose and comprehensiveness once my comments are handled. I found this an engaging read overall, with considerable detail. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "After changing the formula and structure of the previous novel" I suspect what you mean is that the previous novel differed from its predecessors in the series, but as written it sounds like Fleming revised the structure of the novel while writing.
 * Yep, agreed: reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You mention the film series before where it's first linked and glossed, I suggest moving the link and gloss up
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "suicidal" as an adjective without further explanation sticks out a little; also "While returning to Britain ... while driving" in the same sentence. Given the later mention of a suicide attempt, you could shorten, I think.
 * Yep. Struck 'suicidal' and reworked a little. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "coup de deshonneur" I don't know if this is a common enough expression to leave without translation. I might be wrong.
 * I've added a translation, but it's not a literal one, which would be a "blow of dishonour" which doesn't really work. The French use coup + noun for a number of sayings, all with a slightly different meaning for 'coup', from the violent to the mundane 'un coup de téléphone' for a telephone call. I'll think about whether it is worth taking out the phrase entirely to avoid the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Went with taking it out instead. A search for the term only shows it connected with this book, so its obviously not a common term. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "the experimental change in format in The Spy Who Loved Me" I think it wouldn't hurt to explain, if possible in a few words, what the change and what the usual format were.
 * OK, added in the major change at the start of this, which makes it much clearer.Thanks for your thoughts so far, . I'll be glad to hear any others you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Belatedly resuming...I had to google "Union Corse", which isn't a bad thing, but the definition I'm given - generic Corsican organized crime - leaves me confused as to "Draco's Union Corse". I dropped a link into the text in one spot, but perhaps it should be moved up, too?
 * The UC is already linked and introduced in the first reference (which is in the plot when Bond meets Draco). - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sentence beginning "Although he was often a formulaic writer..." isn't incorrect AFAICS but is long enough that I'm getting a bit lost...I wonder if it's as simple as dropping the comma between novel and Fleming, but other solutions could be devised.
 * So it is, missed that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * comma dropped. - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't mention M until "Inspirations"; while anyone familiar with Bond ought to know the character, a link and gloss seems appropriate
 * He’s linked and introduced in the first para of the plot. I’ve added a second link in Inspirations, but does it need another introduction too? - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "...anti-humanist and anti-Christian". Bond is the greedy and predatory id..." I have no quarrel with these descriptors if the source uses them but there's nothing in the plot that makes it obvious to me why they're being used; if possible, I think an example or two would be nice.
 * They’re definitely in the source, but unfortunately Mortimer gives no samples we can include. - SchroCat (talk)
 * A suggestion only; the "characters" subsection is on the longer side, you could consider making "characters" and "inspiration" sections and adding some subsections to "characters". I'm not certain "characters" fit entirely under "development" in any case, though of course some inspiration is discussed.
 * I'm mulling this one over a bit. where do you think subsections should go in the Characters (sub)section? Obviously Bond would be one, but would you think just one for "Others", or make it more granular than that (a section per character seems like overkill, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Bond" and "others" could work, or perhaps something like "Bond", "women characters", "appearance", and "villains". Entirely optional in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of "themes" draws together many very disparate elements. I wonder if it's possible to do a little more to tie it together: having not read the sources, I don't know if it's possible. Might the sources support something about how many of those themes or motifs (is gambling a theme?) are shared across Bond novels, for instance?
 * "It was the first of Fleming's novels listed in The New York Times Best Seller list" This surprises me; the previous books were popular, were they not? Is there further context?
 * It was a slight surprise to me too, but the source is clear ("On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, was the first of his novels to appear on the New York Times bestseller list, where it had a good run in hardcover."), but that's all it says, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Borrowing from Mike Christie's excellent essay, and what I learned therein; I wonder if more can be done to organize the reception section. For instance, comparisons to other Bond novels crop up in multiple paragraphs, as does material about Bond's character.
 * I confess I'm unable to understand the summary of Kirsch in the last paragraph; we hear that he thinks it a landmark, and what the harbingers of that landmark, and of the significance of it; but not actually what makes it a landmark. What am I missing? Also: "qualities in fiction which all but submerged in the 20th-century vogue of realism and naturalism": should this be "qualities in fiction which are all but submerged in the 20th-century vogue of realism and naturalism"?
 * No, we quote the source correctly, but I'll add in the "are" to make it more grammatical. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * First part of your comment still to be dealt with - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did a cursory sweep for sources and found no obvious omissions; much of the scholarly material seems to have focused on the films. That said, there is a lot of analysis of the storyline in the film, that one would assume to be applicable to the novel as well. I'm looking at "For Her Eyes Only" in particular and it's analyses of Fleming's female characters. You already cite it, but has three more chapters on this film alone: I wonder if a little of that material could be worked in without turning this article into a coatrack.
 * I will have a look, but even despite the film and book being close in many respects, there are significant differences between the two. As a general rule I ignore all the material about the films, as they are very different, despite superficial similarities. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and I certainly cannot insist that you add sources that don't touch on the novel, but I think it's worth looking. I wonder if any comparisons are made, for instance, that could be worked in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
My quibbles were thoroughly addressed at the peer review, and on rereading for FAC I find nothing else to raise. The text is an excellent read, seems comprehensive, is neutral in tone, well sourced, balanced, and resourcefully illustrated. Happy to support the elevation of the article to FAC.  Tim riley  talk   09:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Tim! - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by voorts
TK. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work. Some comments follow. Source review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

General comments

 * I've made some minor copy edits throughout.
 * – Sentences like this can be rewritten to remove unnecessary information and for concision. For example: Fleming named an old naval acquaintance of M after his and Godfrey's former NID colleague, Donald McLachlan. The reader of this article doesn't need to know about the Christmas lunch or the rank of McLachlan, particularly since the Christmas lunch isn't described in the "Plot" section. See a few of my copy edits for examples.
 * Note f: Good lord.
 * – I'm dead.
 * This section done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

 * – The reader is unlikely to know what the "tried and tested format" is, so a brief description here would be helpful; e.g., "to his tried and tested format, villain of the day schlock " (not my real opinion; I love the Bond books). I notice the same issue in the lead of ''The Spy Who Loved Me.
 * It's a summary: if people want the details, they can read on. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Assuming that this is meant to summarize the "Style" section, more needs to be said in the lead per MOS:INTRO, as the style of writing is an "important point" in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s fine, you’re allowed to disagree, but we’re already in line with the guidelines, given we summarise the body already. If people want more, they can read in. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's within guidelines. That sentence appears to be the only summary of the "Style" section in the lead, and it doesn't adequately capture what's written in that section. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is within the guidelines. There is nothing that says we have to regurgitate most of the body in the lead, particularly when most of the section does not contain lead-worthy information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All I'm asking for is a one sentence summary. There's an entire section in the article on the topic of Fleming's style. The lead should briefly summarize what that section says. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * – Replace "good" with "positive"; good is too vague. Also, summarize the tenor of those reviews as discussed in the body of the article; e.g., "received broadly positive reviews, with critics praising its tone and twist ending" (I'm writing this before reading the "Critical reception" section, so I don't know what the reviews actually say).
 * I've added "positive", but that's all we can summarise adequately, given the positive reviews were on on different points. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would add something like: . I think that broadly captures what the reviews state. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m happy with how it is, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to add a shorter summary? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No. part of the problem is that trying to find common themes (as you have done), ends up with a soup of misleading OR. Your wording is not an accurate reflection of what the critics said. I think less is more is the better order of the day here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not OR; the lead is supposed to summarize and describe what the article says, and that involves a measure of editorial discretion. If you follow Vanamonde's suggestion above of organizing the critical reception section by theme, then I think it would be quite easy to write a lead sentence that summarizes what the general themes across the reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Background and writing history", "Development", "Style", and "Themes" sections all need to be summarized in the lead, and the plot summary in the lead receives too much weight.
 * Added - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved from below: – I would add in a mention of the fact that this would have resonated with British audiences given recent food insecurity. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not lead-worthy. - SchroCat (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's an important point; the first half of the first paragraph in the themes section deals with that issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a threat to the food chain: it will always resonate with people. I’m fine with the summary as is. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot - done

 * The redirect for Sir Hilary Bray goes to a list of Bond characters without any particular summary of that character. I recommend removing as it is likely to confuse readers.
 * – Clarify that it's a fictional mountain based on a real location; I was initially confused by the wikilink describing the real restaurant.
 * It’s a fictional building, based on a fictional mountain. The restaurant of the name was built long after the book (and unconnected to it) and was only so named after OHMSS was filmed there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would remove the wikilink per WP:EASTEREGG. Piz Gloria can then be moved to the "see also" section as follows: Piz Gloria – restaurant on a mountaintop named for Blofeld's lair voorts (talk/contributions) 21:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I foresee spending too much time removing other people’s addition of the link at a later date, but OK. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you could also add an endnote stating that for the film, they used the restaurant while it was under construction, and that it was then named for the mountain upon opening. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This section done. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Inspirations

 * – This is already said in the background section.
 * – This detail seems a bit trivial.
 * A number of the sources all refer to, so I think we're best off doing so too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's only a citation to one source at the end of that sentence. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it only needs one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about removing this, but I would move it to after the sentence about Pinaud in the Style section. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not about style, it was an error during the novel’s development. - SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This section done, except where commented on. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * – Is this claim supported by ref 23? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. It’s a summary of many parts of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you add a cite to a reliable source that states that Fleming "used events or names from his life" in "all his Bond books"? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because it doesn’t need one. I’ll strike the line in the lead instead to remove the problem entirely. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking for it to be stricken from the lead; I was asking for a relevant cite in the Inspiration section, since it isn't supported by the ref that follows it, ref 23. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What was there before was a reflection of the section (rather than one single sentence based on a single reference). As you don’t agree with that, I’ve taken it out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with it. I don't see where in the rest of the article it discusses what Fleming does in other books, so I think the phrase "As with all his Bond books" requires verification. If you can find a cite that substantiates that, please feel free to add it back in. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Characters, Style, Themes, and Critical reception

 * There are some MOS:SAID issues throughout. For example: "points out", "observes", "notes", etc.
 * I think the terms we use are OK. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Point out", "observe", and "note" are all expressly listed in MOS:SAID. I think the sentences can be rewritten to avoid using those words. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m happy with the wording, thanks. The MOS is a flexible guideline, not a fetish that needs to be followed to the letter, particularly when we’re looking at good writing. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look again and the instances they're used are fine. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * – I would change this to early-21st century British readers, since this analysis was written in 2006 and I would guess that awareness of events in the 80s-00s have dwindled.
 * As we’re not even quarter of the way through, isn’t this still early 21st century? - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Earl-21st century was the wrong phrase; I meant mid-2000s and then change the "has" to "had". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree in limiting it just to the mid-2000s (the BSE crisis still has some resonance now), so reworked in a different way. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That looks good. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * – remove the "very much".
 * – I think "bowdlerised" should be removed because it is not from a NPOV, as it takes a side in the political debate over removing purportedly insensitive materials from books by implying that it is a form of censorship.
 * It’s not NPOV and isn’t taking a side. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Our own article has ; Cambridge say that the term is "often disapproving". Perhaps "expurgated"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Voorts, the removal of words from a book because they may cause offence is censorship, pretty much by definition. That's not a problem, and there is nothing wrong with censorship per se. Even if we use UC's suggestion of "expurgated", that's still censorship - again pretty much be definition. We're not taking sides by saying that this has happened.
 * UC, I wouldnt trust our own article as far as I could throw it - the opinion that it is "a pejorative term for the practice" is completely unsupported by the source. In terms of dictionary definitions, the OED (a far superior work than Cambridge - sorry, couldn't resist the dig) makes no reference to the 'tone' behind its use. I note that Cambs has "often, which isn't the same as "always" or "only". - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "often" shows there's a chance some readers would consider it pejorative. Fair point regarding censorship. I'd be happy with UC's suggestion of expurgated. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Im happy with "bowdlerised". - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Revised" would be more neutral. Would you accept that? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * – Add the word "later" before "described"
 * – Replace "again damning" with "critical of the novel" and delete the rest of the sentence; "although even he admitted" is editorializing. The "you can't argue with success" can then be moved to the end of the paragraph, stated more neutrally.
 * I'll rework, but repeating "he said" for each of these makes it bloody dull to write, let alone to read. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That looks better. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This section done, except where commented on. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bennett and Woollacott need to be introduced here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For the block quote describing Irma Brunt, is there a citation to a secondary source that you can add that analyzes this particular description? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s already there. - SchroCat (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review - passed
Review of.


 * Some of the books have archive.org links while others do not; could you please confirm that you have linked to all books that are available via archive.org?
 * Where the correct version is there, yes, I think so. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While not required, I think it would benefit readers to wikilink to The James Bond Dossier and The James Bond Bedside Companion, as well as at least the first instance of each book publisher. In Journals and magazines, News, and Websites, a few of the entries already have wikilinked journal/newspaper/website titles. If you prefer no wikilinks, that's fine too, but there should be consistency.
 * Im never convinced on WL on books - it confuses and annoys if people think they’re being taken to an online copy of the book. I don’t link publishers - there’s no point. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I noticed that The Guardian and BBC were wikilinked, but nothing else was, so I removed those two. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Chapman 2015: The publisher says "London New York".
 * I’ll check in the morning, but I seem to remember that’s what the edition says. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Griswold 2006: AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, and all I've found about Griswold are a few blog posts praising him for his book. I don't see an indication of adequate fact-checking or evidence that Griswold would be considered an established expert.
 * 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). – SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Griswold is indeed a subject matter expert. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Biddulph 2009: set the url-access parameter to subscription.
 * Vinciguerra 2019: set the url-access parameter to limited.
 * Simpson 2023: set the url-access parameter to limited.
 * Mouriquand 2023: Is there a reason this is under the Websites sub-heading rather than News?
 * Moved from below: I know some of the newspapers (such as The New York Times) share archived versions of their old stories online. Can you search to see if links to those are available. Although not required to pass FA, I think it would be useful to readers to add links to the ProQuest or Newspapers.com versions for articles that aren't available through their original publishers. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ll pass on this. It’s of zero use to anyone who doesn’t have subscriptions, which will be the overwhelming majority of our readers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It also helps editors who might want to access those sources for other articles, but again, your call. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved from below: Some of the journals have ISSNs while others do not and Vinciguerra has an ISSN while none of the other newspapers do. I would just remove them since they're not particularly useful. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Removed. - 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments were moved from here to the appropriate sub-sections. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you separate out these comments into the source review and your other review please? - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. One moment. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
This is also my favorite Bond novel, so staking out a spot. Commons imminent. ~ HAL  333  19:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)