Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Len Deighton bibliography/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC).

Len Deighton bibliography

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Len Deighton is a superlative writer. He produces books on three general areas: military history, cookery and spy/thriller novels; all are well-received by the critics and public alike, with one critic describing him as "a master of modern spy fiction and one of the most innovative writers" of the spy genre. His triple trilogy (and prequel) of Bernard Samson novels is of exceptional high-quality and standing. This bibliography has been separated from the basic (and unsourced) list in the biography, has been brought into line with MOS requirements, and is now fully sourced throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from — Calvin999
 * I think some parts of the lead are not needed, such as place of birth. It's good for his bio but we don't need to know this in his bibliography.
 * Yep, trimmed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Link Bernard Samson
 * Thanks - I didn't even know there was an article on him! - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol. He is linked in his bio, which has a lead nearly identical to this! — Calvin999  18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In 1963 Deighton → Shouldn't there be a comma after the date?
 * Not necessarily in BrEng (it's an American thing that is gaining ground, but certainly not needed). - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Should Long Past Glory be italicised as it was for TV?
 * Yep - now done - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Try to avoid one line paragraphs. Tack it on to the previous to make a fuller, second paragraph.
 * Agree: done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

— Calvin999 17:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that: much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support — Calvin999  18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"In 1963 Deighton wrote a television script, Long Past Glory; it was the first of two such scripts, although he also wrote a film script, Oh! What a Lovely War (1969)." Something about the "also" and rep here doesn't read well to me. I would write it as "Deighton authored two television scripts, the first of which was Long Past Glory in 1963. Six years later he penned the script to Oh! What a Lovely War. (Providing of course that was when he wrote it too), but you see what I mean.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I've gone along the same lines as you but slightly differently. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Definitely looks up to FL standard!♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support with a few minor quibbles:


 * In the "Miscellaneous" section, is there a reason why you omit the year for Spy Film'?
 * -- too many cooks spoil the broth. In this case, prose... Yep, I'm here all week! Three "cookery"s in close succession; four, if you include "cook".
 * before he became an author? Has he retired? He's certainly not dead, so why is this in past tense?
 * Because the varied pre-author career is in the past - since '62 he has been an author. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Other than those minor points, all good.  Cassianto Talk   22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mnay thanks Cass - your points adopted, aside from the final one. Much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Very well-organised list! Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 03:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Krimuk90 - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (for now)
 * I hate to be a negative nelly, but I'm afraid that I'm not entirely convinced at the moment. The prose portion of this article comes to, by my count, 1500 characters, which would just barely pass it at DYK. It's less than half of the prose portions of similar featured lists (e.g. Roald Dahl bibliography, Agatha Christie bibliography and Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography). Surely there must be more to say about a 50-year writing career than just nine sentences? How has Deighton's work been received critically? Has he won any awards? What about commercially? Which books sold well? He wrote a film script... then what happened? How did the film do? Was the script praised? It sounds like his output has been quite diverse – do we know what inspired him to try so many different writing styles? Writing a study on the assassination of JFK could be quite controversial – was it? What was the reaction? Why did he write it? He authored a Sherlock Holmes story - did the estate of Conan Doyle mind his character being used in this way? Why did he sometimes write under the name "Cyril Deighton"? Similar articles (e.g. Christie and Dahl) went into a bit of biographical information about the authors themselves, but there's none of that in this one. I'm afraid that all this implies to me that comprehensiveness is not as high as it should be.
 * Much of what you mention deserves to be covered in the main Deighton article, but has absolutely no relevance on this page. I also have absolutely no idea why you are comparing the lead of a list (where the important information is held in the numerous tables underneath) and a DYK, where the character count is for the entire page: that's a straw man oppose as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An article must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose to meet the DYK criteria, per 2(a) of the eligibility criteria. This article just barely meets that standard. And, to me, if an article can only just meet the DYK standards, then it probably doesn't meet the FL standards, which are a lot higher.
 * As above, the entire word count of a DYK has fuck all to do with the lead of a list. This is a straw man argument that has no place here. – SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, as well as the lack of prose and the short paragraphs, there are zero media, there's no use of colour, and the whole thing just lacks visual appeal. I'm afraid this list just doesn't really "look" like what I'd expect to be featured on the front page. Apologies if this makes me sound like an old schoolmaster, but what disappoints me the most is that I usually really enjoy reading and reviewing your articles, SchroCat, and this one just isn't up to your usual standard at all. Frankly, I don't think it's reflective of your best work, never mind Wikipedia's as a whole, hence my oppose. Sorry. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 12:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Another straw man here. 1. There is no requirement for media to be included. 2. There are no free images of either man or his works, so shall we breach copyright restrictions just to make it look pretty, or should we accept the lack of media, like we do with Works of Keith Floyd? – SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No comment on any of the other issues here since I haven't looked at the list closely enough, but SchroCat is right that media usage is not required in an FL. A non-free photo could probably be justified for the main Deighton article, but not for a bibliography page. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 18:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in the Miscellaneous section doesn't bear any relation to the table beneath it, i.e. it mentions The Ipcress File, Funeral in Berlin, Billion Dollar Brain, etc., but none of them are listed in a table. It looks like a paragraph written for a completely different section in the article. Could it just be moved up to the lead?
 * No: it is where it belongs, and it does bear a relationship to the table. Much of the table is about the film and television scripts produced by Deighton; the paragraph is about the works adapted by others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but if the paragraph is a list other people's adaptations of Deighton's works, and the table is a completely different list of Deighton's works (none of which have been adapted at all), then they're completely disjointed as far as I can see, and probably belong in different sections of the page. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 12:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 08:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "A limited edition of 226 copies." No need for the full stop. Same for the note beneath it.
 * The Observer needs to sort under O rather than T.
 * Works by E. W. Hornung -> Works by Len Deighton (not sure how nobody else spotted this)
 * The typo points all altered. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Source review
 * References are formatted accordingly and consistently.
 * No dead links, but always handy to archive the web pages just in case something happens. No images so no need to check licenses.
 * Crosschecked the BFI sources and found no cases of close paraphrasing/misleading info.
 * 'Retrieved dates' for Ref 20, 21 are needed I would think. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Lemonade51. The retrieved dates have been added, and I'll sort the archiving in the morning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Archiving now done - thanks Lemonade 51! - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.