Wikipedia:Peer review/Dr. No (novel)/archive1

Dr. No (novel)
Dr No is the sixth in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories, and the one which tempted a couple of film makers to see what they could do (and looked what happened when they tried). This article has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous Bond novel re-writes, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. A visit to FAC is the post-PR aim. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp
First read-through comments

Lead:
 * The book cover and wiki article title refer to Dr. with a period, but throughout you use "Dr" without a period.
 * Do you have a reason not to wiki-link Dr No in the second paragraph? Reading again, I'm pretty sure it was just oversight. I'll go ahead and add the wiki-link.
 * "...with Paul Johnson of the New Statesman writing": Personally, I don't mind, but some editors think this "with noun -ing" structure is bad style, and you might get a comment about it in FAC. Moisejp (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Plot:
 * "rest cure": I'm not familiar with this phrase, but if it's common in Britain and you're comfortable with it, no worries.
 * I think so, but if anyone else comments on it, then I'll swap it out. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Three roseate spoonbills: the birds whose protected status Dr No found troublesome" (image caption): I wasn't sure if you meant this point to also be mentioned in the main text (which is what I would do); if you did, I couldn't find it.
 * Honeychile Rider is suddenly referred to as just Honey without any explanation.
 * "The ordeal ends in a fight with a captive giant squid, which he defeats by using stolen objects made into improvised weapons." Is "stolen" significant here? If so, did Bond steal them from No, or did No steal them from somebody (i.e., maybe valuable objects)? It could also possibly be useful to give an example or two of the kinds of objects Bond used as weapons. Moisejp (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Background and writing history:
 * "which was to be based in the Caribbean and featuring the character James Gunn": This structure seems quite awkward and un-parallel to me.
 * "When the project came to nothing": Maybe OK, but feels a little casual. Possibly consider reusing "did not come to fruition" from the lead, or another phrase.
 * "and Fleming could not come up with a new plot": Might be better to specify "a new plot for a forthcoming/subsequent Bond novel" for clarity. It's a little vague currently.
 * "Fleming knew his out-dated view of Jamaica would soon be overtaken by events—such as the novel's description of how the Queen's Club would be lost during independence struggles.": "the novel's description of" seems out of place. I can't explain well, but the flow of ideas feels disjointed to me.
 * For the quote about Fleming's writing practice (to generate 2000 words a day), and the Chancellor/Griswold datings of the story, and the Boothroyd letter, you use the exact same wording as in From Russia, with Love (novel) (I haven't gotten far enough into the article to see if there are other instances). Are you comfortable with that? It might sound repetitive for readers of multiple articles. But if that doesn't bother you, then no worries, I guess.
 * Yes, it is a deliberate move. If people only come to one Bond book article, they get the information - it's as relevant here as in the other articles, so can do with the repeat. The Chancellor/Griswold wording differs in the dates - which is the crucial part of the paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "which he commissioned to show her on a Venus elegans shell;[14] the final artwork was undertaken by Pat Marriott": Did he directly commission Marriott to do the artwork, or was it more complicated than that? If he did, then "was undertaken by" seems slightly misleading (suggesting a more complicated turn of events). Or if it was only slightly more complicated than that, consider adding more details to clarify? Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Moisejp. I've tweaked and changed except where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Characters:
 * "As a result of the rape, Rider has a broken nose, which is common to many of the other female characters in the Bond series.... Other examples include Domino Vitali in Thunderball, who has one slightly shorter leg." I'm not very familiar with Fleming's oeuvre, and would just like to confirm that "many" is definitely not an overstatement. But the larger issue here is defining precisely what is common? Rider has a broken nose, whereas Vitali has a shorter leg. Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Tweaked this one - should be more clear now. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Style:
 * "Having experimented with the structure in his previous novel, Fleming returned to the format of the thriller writers of the early 20th century with which he felt comfortable." I was confused by this sentence at first. My first interpretation was that for his fifth novel he did some stylistic experimentation, but then for this sixth novel he returned to familiar ground—the format of early 20th century thriller writers—which he had also used in his earlier novels. But now I'm pretty sure it is supposed to mean that for his fifth novel he broke away from his previous style, and embraced the format of early 20th century thriller writers, a format he also used for his sixth novel. Am I right? I think what confused me is that "experiment" suggests trying new things, whereas "with which he felt comfortable" suggests having lots of experience doing something. Also "returned to" may be unclear: returned to the pre-experimentation state or post-experimentation state? Moisejp (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this one should also be clearer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat clearer, but what if you used "Having experimented with structure" instead of "Having experimented with the structure"? I know that "the structure" is supposed to mean "the structure used (in general)". But readers may interpret this as meaning "a specific structure" and then look elsewhere in the sentence to find what this specific structure is, leading them to "the format he had used in the early novels of the series"—which is not what is intended. If you just used "structure" without "the" then I believe there would be no confusion. Moisejp (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, but I think that in BrEng the definite article is needed here. I'll email one of the better users of English I know and get an opinion from them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He says we're both right in equal measure, but the structure of the sentence was still a little off. At his suggestion I've gone with this change, which should work. – SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Dr. No was very cardboardy and need not have been ... The trouble is that it is much more fun to think up fantastic situations and mix Bond up in them." I'm not sure what "cardboardy" means here" or what it has to do with "fantastic situations". Also, in "Writing in 1963, Fleming acknowledged his plots were "fantastical while often being based in truth. They go wildly beyond the probable but not, I think, beyond the possible" " Fleming seems to be legitimizing his fantastical plots, while in "The trouble is" quote he seems to be conceding they are problematic.
 * I think that if the comments were from reviewers or from different commenters, then I'd feel as if they needed further analysis, or dropping one to keep a clean 'message' through the article, but as they are both from Fleming and give his view of both this novel and his use of 'fantastic' scenarios, I'd prefer they both put them in. – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "This included in the development of the villain, who is closer to the intellectual "gentleman crook" of the Golden age of detective fiction,[19] and the focus on action at the expense of character development or depth of plot." I don't have a good solution, but I bring it up in case a solution comes to you: One problem is the antecedent of "this" is separated by another sentence, so it becomes less clear. My only idea was to restate something about "These conventions of the early 20th century that he used" in place of "This" but that would be very wordy. Another minor problem is "This included in the development of" seems a possible structure but still slightly awkward, plus "included" is also the verb for the object "the focus on action", which is far away from the verb and is not a parallel structure to "in the development of". Three minor issues but they add up to a less-than-ideal overall sentence. Again, I apologize that I don't have anything good to suggest.
 * How does this suit? – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "Black sees Dr No's underground lair as a "weak" and "bizarre" part of the story": I think, maybe, Black's reason for this is meant to be that the idea of an underground lair is too absurd, tying in with the Matthew Parker quote. But this reason is not stated clearly enough. Or, if that is not the reason, then it feels like just a random observation in a paragraph that otherwise deals with the degree of realism (or lack thereof) in the book. Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a switch round and tweak which makes it a little better. Let me know if you'd like me to have another look at it. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I still don't know what this is trying to say. Here, how are the two ideas opposing, to warrant the use of "although"? As I mentioned before, the rest of the paragraph discusses degrees of reality vs. fantasticalness, but it's not clear how the "weak" and "bizarre" underground lair fits in with the rest of the para. Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it does (although I'll grant that the "although" is not the best word to use) as it's about the perceptions of whether Fleming was too fantastic. Both the critics there agree and focus on their own impressions, with Black expressing his opinion of the fantastic as "bizzare" which is a "weak" part of the plot. – SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I like your latest edit. It is now clear, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi SchroCat. I'll try to look at your edits very soon. By the way, I was wondering whether you are possibly hoping to wrap up this peer review soon (since you already have received lots of comments). I still have Themes onwards to look at. Depending how much of a rush you're in, I can try to hurry myself accordingly. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Moisejp, I'm not in any great rush, but I have a vague idea of moving to FAC at the weekend. If you're not finished I can hang on a little longer, so no pressure. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, good to know, thanks. I'll try my best to fit in some commenting in the next few days. Moisejp (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Themes:
 * "Bond talks about the meaning of power with a number of villains in the series and his conversation with Dr No shows that No believes that it can only be secured with privacy, quoting Carl von Clausewitz's first principle." I don't know what "power can only be secured with privacy" means, and I tried checking the "first principle" link, but didn't find an immediate answer. Please consider adding more details to explain. Also, possibly consider breaking up the sentence—the part starting with "and his conversation with Dr No shows that No believes" feels a little run-on to me (although of course it is grammatically OK). Moisejp (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked this a little: does it read better now? - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked your tweak. See what you think and of course feel free to edit further.
 * No need for my further work: it looks much better since your edit. – SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "According to Panek, in his examination of 20th century British spy novels, Dr. No "shows a shift towards emphasizing the intellect and organizing power of the individual", as opposed to a group or nation." Similarly, this statement would be clearer with an example from Panek of how it the book shows this shift.
 * It may be, but Panek gives no such elucidation, unfortunately. – SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then.


 * "Black identifies that although it is American assets that are under threat from the Soviet Union, it is British power, through the British agent that concludes the issue and a modern British warship, HMS Narvik, that is sent with British soldiers to the island at the end of the novel." I'm not sure if it is common in British English, but "identifies that" feels quite awkward to me. The rest of the sentence is also kind of long, and it readers may need to read it a few times to follow it. Maybe something like this: "Black notes that—although the Soviet Union threatens American assets in the novel—British power concludes the issue through Bond, and by subsequently sending a warship with British soldiers to take possession of the island."
 * I've re-worked it a little, using part of your suggestion, but with a split to the sentence and a slight trim. – SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is much better, thanks.


 * "In Black and Parker's views, the display of British power, with no assistance from America, was proof there was life left in the British Empire." This sounds like they are saying there's proof of this in reality. But surely this "proof of life" can only be taken in the context of the novel—in which case I'm not sure that "proof" is the best word. Perhaps something like "In Black and Parker's views, the display of British power, with no assistance from America, portrayed the British Empire as an enduring force." Moisejp (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep: much better - now altered. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Publication history:
 * I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I wonder whether the second paragraph is out of place. It doesn't really talk about Dr. No's publication. Possibly would it be more at place in the Reception section of From Russia, with Love, since it was from before Dr. No was published. Or take it out altogether? Or leave it where it is if you feel comfortable with it being there. Moisejp (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's slightly out of place, but there isn't really a better fit for it. It's needed in the article as it was the turning point of criticism directed at him. It wasn't about FRWL, but all Fleming's novels up to that point, so dropping it in the preceding article probably isn't the place for it either. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I had a feeling that would be your opinion. :-) No worries, I just thought I'd bring it up in case. Moisejp (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Reviews:
 * The second half of the second paragraph is not as easy to follow as would be ideal. It mentions the review in The Manchester Observer, which refutes Johnson's "sex, snobbery and sadism" complaint. Then it shifts to Fleming discussing the Observer Guardian review, not about anything mentioned so far, but rather about the exclusiveness of Bond's tastes. (Do you have any quotes from the Observer Guardian review about this that could be used as a transition? Actually, Fleming does mention "blatant heterosexuality" and "violence" in the "Perhaps these are superficial excuses quote. Maybe that material could be moved into the main text.) It says he "accepted the criticism" but "defended it", which is slightly contradictory. I'm not sure whether all British people know what toad-in-the-holes and tele-bikkies are, but I didn't. I looked them up (even then I wasn't sure whether tele-bikkies are a kind of cookies eaten in front of the television). I gather from the context that they are working-class foods. Maybe this is something British people would immediately pick up on, but it may be less clear for people of other regions. Similarly, the "Perhaps these are superficial excuses" quote makes reference to various things that, I presume, may have been clear in 1950s Britain (Welfare wigs, Sax Rohmer's father), but there is little context for the modern reader. Moisejp (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have a proper look at this shortly, (and I think you mean the Manchester Guardian, which is the main paper in the para–the Observer was only the opening line). Yes, there isn't much in the way of context to the quote, but to try and explain the connection between Fu Manchu and Rohmer's father would take a couple of hundred words and take us too far out of the remit of the reviews section. What we see here is a defence by Fleming of his creation, which is what gives it some weight. I could try and add a couple of links in there for those parts too regional or out-of-date, which would soften the impact. I'll have a proper look shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added some further info from the Guardian review (the charge which Fleming rebuts), so his comments are now more applicable to the criticism.
 * I've added some links where possible for those who won't catch the 1950s British references
 * I've tweaked the wording slightly around the 'accepting criticism' point, which better reflects the letter he sent.
 * Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi SchroCat, your edits for my last point are an improvement, especially around the "accepting criticism" sentence. I guess my review is pretty much done. Ideally, I would have liked to do second read-through, but I can't guarantee I could do this speedily, and I'm sure you're eager to get onto FAC. Life's gotten busier, and I may not be able to participate in this FAC. I'm certain you'll have lots of other reviewers, though. If it happens you don't, I'll jump in. Also, please do let me know when your next peer review comes up, and I'll try my best to participate. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - your efforts have been very much appreciated and the article is much stronger because of them. I'll pop this into FAC now, and if you have time later I'd be delighted to see you there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
That's all from me. The article is top notch stuff, as we have come to expect in this developing series. –  Tim riley  talk    09:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * In the third para we are inconsistent about the capitalisation, piping and italicisation of the definite article in press titles: the New Statesman but The Daily Express. My own preference is for the latter form, but it really doesn't matter, as long as we are consistent one way or the other.
 * Plot
 * We link "Jamaica" here, but have not done so in the lead. It's borderline, but I think I'd regard Jamaica as covered by "The names of major geographic features and locations" and not to be linked, according to the MoS, but again, as long as we're consistent it probably doesn't matter very much.
 * Background and writing history
 * "out-dated" – the OED doesn't hyphenate this, and neither does Chambers.
 * I think the two excellent quotations at the end of the second para would carry more weight if attributed inline.
 * Plot inspirations
 * "over-large" – the OED doesn't hyphenate this either, though the hyphen looks all right to me in this case.
 * "a letter from Bond enthusiast and gun expert Geoffrey Boothroyd ..." – clunking false title here. I'd be inclined to make it "a letter from a Bond enthusiast and gun expert, Geoffrey Boothroyd ..."
 * "Blanche Blackwell, mother of Chris Blackwell of Island Records" – unless there is some suggestion that Fleming was Chris's father I don't see the relevance of dragging Chris into your narrative here.
 * "the gentleman's club White's" – I'd make this "gentlemen's" rather than "gentleman's", I think. (I see the WP article on such clubs uses the plural form, too.)
 * Characters
 * Quote box – the attribution to W Cook in the Staggers lacks the definite article. Whether – see above – you pipe, capitalise and italicise it or not it ought to be there.
 * Style
 * "longer than Fleming's previous novels" – you could perhaps avoid repetition of the name by making this "longer than the previous novels".
 * Publication history
 * "The largest boost in books sales" – reads rather oddly. I'd be inclined to make this "The largest boost in sales of the novel", and then change "novel" to "book" later in the sentence
 * Reviews
 * Second para – there are two "while"s, one of which could be eliminated by replacing the first with a semicolon.
 * "but instead said that" – I think the emphasis intended here would be better brought out by rearranging as "but said that instead".
 * Time magazine is mentioned earlier (under Characters) and the blue link ought to be moved up to there. Incidentally, why do we refer to "Time magazine" rather than just "Time"? We don't write of "Punch magazine" or "Vogue magazine".
 * the New York Herald Tribune – another publication whose definite article isn't piped, capitalised and italicised, unlike its nearby rivals.
 * Adaptations
 * "in The Daily Express on a daily basis" – Too many dailys. "every day" would avoid the repetition, though strictly the Daily Express didn't come out every day, making way for the even more frightful Sunday Express on the Sabbath. You could perhaps make the point obliquely by saying "From 19 March to 1 April (I checked in the archives courtesy of Westminster Libraries. I see, incidentally, that the Express titled the book "Doctor No" rather than "Dr. No" for its 1958 serialisation.)
 * That's great – many thanks Tim: your suggestions adopted in full. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ceoil

 * It was not the first bond novel, but was the first film. Can we state this in the opening para for the confused (like me).
 * The quote from Paul Johnson's review could be taken as positive or negative; I take it that it should be written as "dismissed the book as".
 * Section headers: I dont like "writing history" or "Plot inspirations", though I haven't come up with alternative titles yet either.
 * These are the same as the other Bond FAs. I'd prefer to keep consistency throughout the series, but if you come up with an improvement, it'll be easy enough to swap the others out too. -– SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mulling this through my slow brain Schro. Ceoil (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Overall very good as usual; still reading through.
 * It goes with out saying that you can revert any of my, ahem, "improvements". Ceoil (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers Ceoil: the two points above both dealt with. – SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've rejigged the lead a bit so its more chronological. I dont like the grouping of "Publication and reception" - very different things, and worthy of separate examination. Maybe the combination is from an earlier version of the page. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld
Reading shortly.


 * "The story was 1962 as the first film" -was 1962?
 * ""Sex, Snobbery and Sadism"" -why caps?
 * It's the title of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "Writing in The Times Literary Supplement Philip Stead" -comma after Supplement?
 * "Culligan admitted that "Confidentially though, we enjoyed Dr. No, and if this be sick, sick, sick, gentlemen, make the most of it."" -not sure on the value of this quote but perhaps it won't harm the article.

Can see little wrong with it, excellent job.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks as always Doc: I've tweaked per your first and third comments, and if there are others that also pick up on the Culligan quote, I'll go with the consensus and cut it out. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
To come... Cassianto Talk   19:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Background and writing history
 * "By January 1957 he had published four novels—Casino Royale in 1953, Live and Let Die in 1954, Moonraker in 1955 and Diamonds Are Forever in 1956" -- in 19.., in19.., in 19..
 * "As with his previous four novels, Fleming himself came up with the concept of the front cover design; as he had considered Honeychile Rider to have a Venus-like quality when introduced in the book, he wanted this echoed in the cover." -- Two things: redundant use of the word "himself"; second, I'd lose "as" after the semi-colon.
 * "When he commissioned Pat Marriott, he instructed that she be shown on a Venus elegans shell." -- I may've missed it, but what was Marriott's job?
 * Plot inspirations
 * "The colony was 100 square miles (260 km2) of inaccessible mangrove swamp and salt flats, home to flamingos, egrets and roseate spoonbills: the location became the background for Crab Key." -- Does the colon do its job here?
 * I'm sure I've already seen a link to Diamonds Are Forever?
 * "After Diamonds Are Forever was published in 1956, Fleming received a letter from a Bond enthusiast and gun expert, Geoffrey Boothroyd, criticising his choice of firearm for Bond..." → "After Diamonds Are Forever was published in 1956, Fleming received a letter from Geoffrey Boothroyd, a Bond enthusiast and gun expert, who criticised the author's choice of firearm for Bond."
 * Characters
 * "...punishing Bond both in terms of stripping him of his gun and then sending him on what was considered at first to be a "soft" assignment." Who considerd this: Bond or M?
 * To help and save? Are these the same thing here?
 * "Winder considers the scenes with Quarrel are "embarrassingly patronising but nonetheless hypnotic". I'd lose "are" for "to be".
 * Style
 * "In From Russia, with Love Fleming had experimented with an unusual narrative structure" -- I feel like "had" is redundant here.
 * "Black sees Dr No's underground lair as a "weak" and "bizarre" part of the story;[49] the journalist and writer Matthew Parker sees the novel..." -- "sees Dr No/Sees the novel. Nothing wrong with either, but a little repetitive when used close together.
 * Cheers . A slight delay over a long half-term weekend, but nearly all sorted. The only one is the final point, which I need to look at in the light of a comment from MoiseJP too. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing, with grateful thanks to all who took part. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)