Jump to content

Talk:For Your Eyes Only (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFor Your Eyes Only (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starFor Your Eyes Only (film) is part of the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed
January 23, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
June 30, 2016Good topic removal candidateDemoted
July 6, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
March 30, 2022Good topic removal candidateDemoted
September 27, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Sign that Moore was too old?

[edit]

"Now why don't you put your clothes back on, and I'll buy you an ice cream." -- Beardo 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Nah, a sign that Bibi was too young ;] Captain deathbeard (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm trying to figure out when Bibi's age is mentioned. The actress was less than a year younger than Carole Bouquet, and both were in their early 20s. For many like me in the AUDIENCE, it was certainly a sign that Moore was too old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.168.39 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:For Your Eyes Onlydrag.jpg

[edit]

Image:For Your Eyes Onlydrag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PCS with Blofeld

[edit]

Note that Blofeld is not actually mentioned in the PCS or anywhere else in the movie. I believe that the "rights" to his name were owned by the producers of Never Say Never Again, the non-canonical Bond movie with Sean Connery made at about the same time. Yet there can be little doubt that Blofeld is the villain dropped down the chimney, as he is seen with his white cat, and the opening has Bond at his wife's grave, and she was murdered by Blofeld (then played by Telly Savalas in his pre-Kojak days) at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 64.85.225.235 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]
  • "Benson on Bond". The International Association of Media Tie-In Writers. Retrieved 16 August 2011. – I've marked this because I think it needs a closer check. It seems to be a collection of interviews with writers, but I couldn't establish who the publisher is. If it is someone reputable then this should be fine, but if it's fansite just posting up interviews then it fails RS. If we can't establish the publisher I think it should be replaced (currently ref 60).
    It's a re-hash of an interview Benson did with CommanderBond.net (see http://commanderbond.net/2312/the-raymond-benson-cbn-interview-part-ii.html) Would you think that also classifies as a self-published source or as a valid source to use? It's a debatable point is CB.net is self-published and I'm not sure how the site is viewed...! - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is permissable as a primary source since Benson gave a direct interview to CommandBond.net, so I think it is an acceptable source for Benson's opinion. It would be kind of bizarre if we said you can't use the interview direct from CB.net, but you can use the bits that The NY Times publish. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of issues with the "Blofeld" character in the casting section. It appears that the legal circumstances of using the character are not referenced; however there is a source halfway through the sentence, so if that covers it the citation should be moved to the end of the sentence. I recall Bond sinking Blofeld's sub at the end of Diamonds Are Forever, but I don't recall conclusive confirmation of Blofeld's death. The scene is slightly ambiguous, so the claim of Blofeld's death should be sourced, but if we don't source it we should simply state his death is implied but not shown (it's a while since I saw it so if I'm just remembering it incorrectly then by all means remove the tag).  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and third paragraphs of the Production section need sourcing. The first source is needed for the creative direction of the film, the second is needed for Fleming's caveat regarding only using the title of "The Spy Who Loved Me".
I'm not a fan of the minutiae of where words appear in titles etc. To me it smacks of being over-detailed, which is not what is needed (and goes against WP:DETAIL) Would anyone object if we just lost the whole paragraph? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts (and with WP:BOLD as a defence) I've taken it out already and if anyone wants to argue then they can put it back in later! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that. I personally thought the same thing, and as an 'editor' probably would have removed it myself. When I peer review though I try to restrict myself just to issues that stand in the way of article promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film is the second of the James Bond series to move Ian Fleming's name in the credits from over the title of the film to over "James Bond 007"; this format would be used in all future Eon Bond films. The first to move Fleming's name was The Spy Who Loved Me, to reflect that Fleming only authorized Eon to use the title of his novel.[citation needed] Fleming's name reverted to the usual location for Moonraker, the last Eon Bond film before 2006 to be based directly on one of his novels. Since most future Eon Bond films were based only on Fleming's character (and occasionally elements of his short stories), Fleming's name was moved permanently starting with For Your Eyes Only; it has remained there ever since, even with 2006's Casino Royale which was based directly on Fleming's novel. The only change in the opening credits above the title (other than Bond actors) since this film was from "Albert R. Broccoli presents" to "Albert R. Broccoli's Eon Productions Limited presents" (with "Limited" omitted in printed credits) starting with Tomorrow Never Dies, the first Eon Bond film made after Broccoli's death.

  • The final paragraph of the "Writing" section requires a source.
Not sure whether to leave the following info in the 'Cast' section, or include it in 'Writing' or both! Any thoughts / suggestions? - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the final paragraph has relatively little to do with the writing or indeed the development of FYEO, so I would merge it into the casting section. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another go at the section in writing as I think it needed to be addressed (it's a notable sequence in its own right and we had a lot of un-sourced material in there) Let me know what you think - feel free to revert or re-write if you think it's still rubbish! - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The character contains a number of characteristics of Ernst Stavro Blofeld,[1] but could not be identified as such because of the legal reasons surrounding the Thunderball controversy with Kevin McClory claiming sole rights to the Blofeld character - a claim disputed by Eon.[2]

  • In the comic-book adaptation section there is a paragraph about the differences between the comic and the film. Generally we don't include a list of differences unless they are attributable to a secondary source as per Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Adaptation_from_source_material. A secondary source is required since an editor highlighting differences potentially violates WP:WEIGHT i.e. you could reel off an endless list of differences, so it is not the editor's place to pick out what they perceive as the "key differences". I think this should mostly be removed barring the—addition of a source—except for one aspect: the presence of M in the story. Since M's absence from the film is covered in some detail by the article, I think Due Weight actually compels us to document his presence in the comic. The issue has already been established as notable within the context of the article through secondary sources, so I feel mention of M's inclusion in the comic should be retained. The rest should go unless we can establish the notability of the differences via a secondary source.
 Done I can find no information to support any of the points raised, so I've removed the paragraph. It looks a little too much like original research to me. Again, if anyone can find a suitable source then it can br put back in in a more appropiate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few sourcing issues need to be sorted out; I'll take a closer look at the neutrality tomorrow, although apart from the comic-book section I didn't notice any serious issues while checking the sourcing. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice Igordebraga has added a segment on the "symbolism" of Bond's Lotus being blown up. While I don't dispute the claim, I don't think symbolic interpretations should be added without a source, no matter how obvious they are to the viewer. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything on this from my sources... I'll tag it and let him let us know where he got it from. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the neutrality and nothing appears to need addressing in those terms, beside the due weight issue in the comic book section. It's basically just the sourcing issues that have to be sorted out and then it will be ready for its GA review. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it out (it's below) and if Igor can find something to back it up then it can go in again! I've been over it again and I'm pretty happy with it, so I'm going to bite the bullet and list it now... just don't shout at me if you think I'm being too early! ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which was symbolically represented with a scene where Bond's Lotus blows itself up and forces 007 to rely on Melina's more humble Citroën 2CV.[citation needed]

It looks good to go; I've fixed some MOS violations and added some wiki-linking, and I've also run a Webcite comb on the article. If the GA reviewer finds any issues I am sure they will only be minor ones. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pfeiffer & Worrall 1998, p. 127.
  2. ^ Smith 2002, p. 178.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:For Your Eyes Only (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will start this review over the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thanks Tony. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
  • "collection For Your Eyes Only; the title story and "Risico"." is probably better as "For Your Eyes Only collection: the title story and "Risico"."
  • "The plot that has Bond going after a missile command system..." doesn't seem to need the word that.
  • $195.3 million needs a current dollar conversion to have meaning to today's reader. See similar conversions in the Bobby Orr article for example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I altered your dollar conversion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did - thanks for that - I wasn't sure how it worked, but I'll use it correctly on the others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually fancier ways to round to 1 or 2 places as needed. Look at Template:Inflation closely when you have a chance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically incorrect to correct worldwide grosses for US inflation. As explained by The Wall Street Journal (here: [1]) ticket prices have risen at different rates in different countries. To adjust the worldwide gross you would have to adjust the gross in each country and then ad dthem up, which we can't do when all we've got is the total. If you look at all the published adjusted charts such as the the ones at Box Office Mojo and the British Film Insititute they only adjust the US gross or the UK gross, never teh world wide gross. I very much doubt we can find a chart that adjusts grosses to compensate for inflation in every country. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is an industry standard then we should remove it here too. It just seems like it would help the reader to know what the U.S. inflation adjusted total of the U.S. $ donominated worldwide gross is. I understand price indexes and such and the imprecision. O.K. remove the adjustment from worldwide totals, but retain it for US and UK totals.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is the possibility of original research; I don't actually have a strong personal opinion either way, and I do agree some sort of inflation adjustment would be beneficial for comparitive analysis. My recommendation would be to use the BOM domestic adjusted figures. Even though they aren't "worldwide" figures, the adjusted domestic chart does tend to be used in lieu of an adjusted worldwide chart. I'm against doing the adjustments ourselves because some of the 60s and 70s films have had multiple releases, which complicates the calculations. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some useful sources for adjusted grosses: BOM has a full chart here but it requires a Premier account (someone at the Film Project is bound to have one). The Numbers also has one here and has FYEO down for $101 million in today's money at the domestic box office. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you might be doing some sort of Bond WP:GT. Am I correct. Which ones have passed and how many do you have left, if so?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great if we could get it that far. Since mid June we've got Dr. No, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The Man with the Golden Gun all passed as GA, with For Your Eyes Only going through the process now. We're currently working on Licence to Kill‎ at the moment (which was a bit messy when we started, but is getting there now and will then move on to Never Say Never Again (a complete and utter mess!), which will be the final one in the series to get to GA status. I'm not 100% sure whether we'll also have to get James Bond (film series) up to GA to qualify for the WP:GT. I'm also putting Dr. No through a Peer Review to see if I can push that up to WP:FA status at some point in the future... We'll see! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you may be doing a series and even if not these are all related articles, you will want to do the inflation adjustment for all dollar amounts that are more than 10 years old in the other articles when you get a chance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks the heads-up on that one: I'll make a start on that shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be best to hold off for the time-being. I don't think it is correct to adjust worldwide grosses as outlined above in the manner suggested (no other film article does this), and if you include the British/American adjusted grosses, it may be best to source the figures from somewhere such as Box Office Mojo. Many pre-1980 Bond films had re-releases, so in the cases of the earlier ones, the figures would need adjusting for the different releases. If Tony still insists on worldwide adjustments I would prefer to run it by the Film Project first, because we would be creating data that no published source currently does. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
OK - I'll do this at the same time as the inflation conversion on all the articles. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The extra '007' identification now done on all articles in the series. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK - apols for that - I thought there might be an etiquette thing for that, but wasn't sure! - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • This section is a bit touchy. What you are presenting is different from what I am use to. I sort of feel the most proper is the very brief style of Die Another Day, if not just actor and character name. However, I see in your topic, there is also Quantum of Solace, which has a paragraph for each. The kicker is that the only WP:FA, Casino Royale is styled like you are presenting here, except that it has no citations in the section. You either have to have a citation for every character or for none. I think I would pursue the style of the FA in this case and remove all footnotes here, making sure that all the facts are cited in the main text.
  • The big problem is that at WP:GT they are suppose to tell you to make all these sections have the same format. You should anticipate being told to make all the cast sections look alike.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the areas of WP weakness, IMHO: there is no clear and consistent policy for the layout of Cast. I'm putting Dr. No through a peer review at the moment (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Dr. No (film)/archive1‎) and was advised to keep the cast section simple with a beefed-up Casting sub-section in Production, which I have just done. My problem with Casino Royale is that much of the info in the Cast section is not cited anywhere (consider the following "This is the first Eon-produced Bond film in which Leiter is played by a black actor. (The only other black actor to portray Leiter was Bernie Casey in Never Say Never Again, which was not produced by Eon.)" I've looked in both the Cast and Casting sections as well as the general article and no citations for this information at all.)
If we have to go any direction, I'd prefer to go the Die Another Day (and now Dr. No) way and argue the difference with the GT review about Casino Royale having a different format because it is an FA article... Would you be happy if we did it in that way? - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Film's MOS provides three distinct formats at WP:CASTLIST; however, the one common feature is that all three provide background information, and the Die Another Day actually seems inadequate by the issued guidelines. The MOS states: The key is to provide significant behind-the-scenes production information. Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others. On that basis Die Another Day would probably fail a GA review due to the weakness of the casting section. I personally thought the approach we took at Dr No is the way to go. The Cast list as it is now certainly complies with the guidelines. The problem we've been facing on these articles is that some of them have been demoted because they fall short of new GA criteria, or have strayed too far away from the model that was passed, so we have to be careful about treating older GA articles as 'models', and perhaps we should be taking a closer look at Die Another Day to make sure it still meets the criteria, and make sure it still complies with GA. Betty Logan (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. So I'd say stay with the current format and just decide whether to cite each one or go without citation for them all. That still does not help us when the impending topic becomes at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather, a cast list itself doesn't need sourcing if the actor is credited in the film (since it can be verified by watching the film just like with the plot); sometimes sources are included if the cast list deviates from the credit order. However, if you include information on the casting process then that needs to be sourced because that's a claim that can't be verified by just viewing the film. If the actor isn't credited in the film (such as voice dubs etc) then that will need to be independently sourced. MOSFILM provides quite a lot of freedom on how to format casting (most styles comes down to personal preference—I prefer to just incorporate casting into the production section and not bother with a cast list since a reader can easily look it up on IMDB anyway) so generally its left to the whim of the editors; the main focus should always be on the casting process though, and that should be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to present ACTOR as CHARACTER and nothing else it does not have to be sourced. If you are going to add two or three sentences about the character, I think it should be sourced, although this might be an extension of the plot sourcing rules.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are on the same wavelength here. If the claim about the character is a clearly unambiguous plot detail i.e. James Bond is a secret agent, then the film is a reasonable source. If you discuss aspects of the character that are open to interpretation i.e. Pussy Galore is a lesbian, then it probably needs to be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say that normal "rules" for MOS with cast section don't apply to Bond films. They are different to most other films in this respect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production
 Done - the correct en dashes now in place. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were en dashes. That is no change. However, I see that the WP:EMDASH section has been rewritten to allow for either Unspaced em dash or Spaced en dash. The second alternative is relatively new MOS guideline for Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Music
 Done I've linked 1981 to the right place on the page too, but if you think that's over linking, please let me know and I'll get rid of it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant for you to choose the proper article at 1981 Academy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do the same for the Golden Globes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
I took it out. Because if referred to single night's takings at a UK cinema, a conversion is not needed (and if so, why just the US$?); we would also have ended up with a sentence that ran "....a gross of £14,998.[49] (£42,850 in 2011 pounds[50]) ($29,696)[49] ($xx,xxx in 2011 dollars[51])" which seems to be labouring the point slightly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have with the updating format is that is does not agree with the sources. The article states "The film grossed $54.8 million in the United States..." The quoted source used is The Numbers, as against the WP template. The differences in the figures generated are below.

  • WP Template: $132 million in 2011 dollars
  • The Numbers: $101.5 million at 2011 ticket prices

Your call as to which should be used, but The Numbers is an independent and verifiable source. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, although the sentence now reads as follows and is, I think, slightly convoluted:

The film grossed $54.8 million in the United States,[51] (equivalent to $101.5 million at 2011 ticket prices[52] or $132 million in 2011 dollars,[53] adjusted for general inflation) and $195.3 million worldwide,[54] becoming the second highest grossing Bond film after its predecessor, Moonraker.[51]

Contemporary reviews
  • Spell check the article I am seeing furore and wlthough in this section.
 Done for wlthough, but not for furore - nothing wrong with the spelling in British English. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reflective reviews
  • Is 69% good or bad? How does it compare to the rest of the series? (maybe state the mean or median of the series)  Done by Igordebraga - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 12 among the bond films leaves me wondering two things. 1.) how many bond films. (12 among the 23 bond films might be better) 2.) is that a good group to compare with. This is the exact median of the bond films, but 69% could still be really good or really bad. Do we assume that a reader knows what an average rating is for that service.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It now reads as 12th among the 22 Bond films. To work out the means and medians starts pushing us into WP:OR and having to justify the maths behind it all as RT does not give an aggregate score for the series (if it does then I can't find it!) As 69% is an absolute figure (ie it sits on a point between 0 and 100) I think it gives a flavour as to how the film is rated overall. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IGN chose For Your Eyes Only as the sixth best Bond film, should mention either the year or how many had been made at the time of this statement.
  • Same for similar subsequent statements.
  • Likewise with Bond girl stuff.
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I may need a second opinion on what the MOS is for cast sections of film articles.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I'd like to see a bit more detail about its box office performance and ratings.

 Done - The reflective reviews have been beefed up and the performance for this film have now been extensively covered. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. I am not sure that File:Tracy Bond gravestone.jpg is not sculptural enough that it counts as 3D art. What is it made of?
I'm not sure anyone will know: it is a photo of a prop taken at a convention and I presume that they wouldn't let anyone touch it to find out. I've had a good search but can find no further information as to its construction. If necessary it can be removed, but it looks like it's been on here (and on WikiCommons) since January 2006. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep it, find out if it is considered a sculpture at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if it stays it should be proximal to the text "The sequence begins with Bond laying flowers at the grave of his late wife".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image moved to the suggested location & question asked on the Media Copyright page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial answer back - see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You still have the other image issue with the CAPTIONS>
I have removed the image, pending a decision from the Media Copyright people. If they say it is okay, then I will put the image back in where it was. If they say not, then I do not propose putting the image in - it is not of sufficient note in its own right to earn a place on a non-free basis. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. WP:CAPTIONs repeatedly use full stop periods when there is no complete sentence.
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually fixed. Tombstone still wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done now reads as one complete sentence. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the verb? Do you mean is shown or is shown here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two verbs here, but I've clarified the sentence slightly either way to be clear. All we now now need on this is the above question on the grave marker. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. Pending


Responding to the request for a second opinion here. The cast section does follow MOS, but entries that only use in-universe material should be avoided, and it is a little long. I'd remove anything that doesn't have sourced information about the actual casting and actors to trim it down and bring it back into line. GRAPPLE X 21:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, but I'm still a little unclear: you say the section is too long, but I have gone over WP:CASTLIST and can find no limits on size of the section at all. If you look over a number of FA articles, such as Richard III or The Mummy and you'll see much more involved sections such as we have here – and less well cited than the standards we have worked to here. With the exception of the actual names of actors and characters, nothing in the Cast section of this article is uncited. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't mean to say anything is currently uncited - what I mean is that if any of the entries don't go beyond the in-universe information, and don't have anything that could be added in terms of real-world information, then they could probably be gotten rid of - whilst there's no limit on length (short of WP:SPINOUT but you're not there yet), cast sections are generally intended to highlight the casting process and the actors' side of things, rather than in-universe information and the characters' side of things. Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Cast has a few examples to help - Witchfinder General (film) is a good one to go by. Also, from what I've seen, the cast sections of film articles can get away with summarising some of the information from elsewhere in the article, if for example several of the roles are discussed in the 'Reception' or 'Production' sections. I certainly have no problem with it. GRAPPLE X 11:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does in-universe mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pertaining to the fictional universe of the film, such as describing the role of James Bond as a spy as opposed to describing Bond as a part being acted. GRAPPLE X 14:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think the Cast section is adequate for a GA (in that it doesn't violate MOSFILM and uit does have third-party coverage of the casting—thus covering the main bases), I do agree with Grapple that the emphasis on the character information weakens the enclyclopedic nature of the article to a degree. I think this can be addressed in two ways: 1) Merge the casting section into the Cast list (or vice versa), so all the casting information is together; 2) I notice there are sub-articles about the characters, so maybe we can move all the "in universe" stuff about the characters to those, and style the cast section along the lines of the one at Witchfinder General (film), which is a FA. I think it is important to note that MOS:FILM provides a lot of leeway in how casting is covered, but if we could bring it into line with one of the recommended styles I think it would be of benefit to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're beginning to go round in circles here, so I'll drop in the obvious question which someone may be able to answer clearly for me. If the layout we have used here is closely akin to the FA-class articles Richard III, The Mummy and Casino Royale (indeed we have improved on these by citing all our information) AND if this article does not go against any guidelines provided by WP:CASTLIST, then on what basis does this article have to be changed? Before anyone starts answering the question, please also look at another GA-rated Bond film article, Quantum of Solace. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be changed to pass GA, since as far as I can see it still complies with the MOS; however, if you look at those FA articles they only have one casting section. This article has two casting sections, and in doing so the first section is weakened by separating some of the real-world casting content from it. So in short, I think the article would be strengthened if the two sections were combined into one section and then the "in universe" descriptions wouldn't dominate the section so much. That said, I don't think it's a deal-breaker for GA since the only requirement GA places on the article is third party coverage of the casting, which the article does do. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see what is going to happen with the tombstone, but the article as it stands is fine and I commend the hard work of the nominator. I also thank the bevy of 2nd respondents about the cast and casting. I anticipate that the article will soon be part of a WP:GTC nomination and am interested in seeing how the various cast sections are adressed in that discussion. I will pass the article here right now, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thanks Tony. I'll drop you a line on your talk page once we have a final landing on the grave stone. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tombstone itself isn't mentioned in the article prose. It is perhaps nice eye candy if it is in fact free (and I seriously doubt that actually). But, is it really necessary? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's out for th emoment, but if it's free then it'll go back in. If it's not free then it'll be up for discussion, although I think it would be worth putting it in. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to throw a wrench in the works, but I fail to see the need of File:FYEOcomicbook.jpg in the For_Your_Eyes_Only_(film)#Comic_book_adaptation section. The cover itself isn't mentioned, and this non-free image is being used to support just three sentences. The fair use justification on the image's description page is very weak, effectively just "illustration". That's not sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILM Assessment

[edit]

Per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have assessed this article, reassessing it at B class. I also went through and did some copyediting in the article, please review my edits. I unfortunately started this without realizing that the above GA review had taken place. Please offset any issues I may have caused that conflict with the above. Going through the article, the only qualms I had was that the plot could still use another workover or two, and the that the image of the watch may have the same issue as the toy gun in The Man with the Golden Gun. Please verify if it is Commons acceptable for any non-free issues. I would also recommend expanding/cleaning up the fair use rationale on the comic book image. If you have any questions about this assessment, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Bond gravestone.jpg

[edit]

I've removed the image of the grave stone from the article, pending a decision from Media Copyright people as to whether this is a copyright free image or not. if they say it is okay, it can go back in. if they do not, then I suggest it is not worth putting it back into the article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld's voice

[edit]

The article claims that Peter "Marrinker" (sic) did Blofeld's voice. The Smith book misspells Peter Marinker's name - never a good sign. Apparently the book contains more than its fair share of errors. For example, the authors claim that OHMSS clocks in at 152 minutes. See here. (Google search the following review: "A good book but with some howlers, October 23, 2002" "By Edward Nelson".) All other sources indicate Robert Rietti did the voice, though I can't immediately locate a primary source citation. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right - the Cork & Stutz encyclopaedia confirm it. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much; I had a feeling the source was wrong... most notably, because Rietty's voice from the Bond films is now quite recognizable to my ears. Wish I could've supplied a better source, but thanks. :-) Stolengood (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in reference

[edit]

The article mentions that one of the 2CV cars was modified for the film with a plate on its roof so that it could be spun upside-down, and I've checked the linked reference and it does indeed corroborate this - except it is wrong. In the film, it is one of the black villain cars that ends up on its roof, only to be struck by the second black car and left spinning upside-down. The 2CV never ends up on its roof (it does briefly roll down a hill, but it never comes to a rest on its roof). The information being referenced is incorrect, as is this article.--Leigh Burne (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisl's driver?

[edit]

The article states that he overhears Lisl inform Bond that he is known to be a secret agent. I watched this last night for about the 15th time this month, and no such conversation happens. He merely tells her he wants to write an article on Greek smugglers and inquires as to whether or not she can help him, moments before she, unsurprisingly for a woman in a Bond film, melts into his arms. Maybe I'm watching a different version... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.126.80 (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. In future please remember to sign your posts with four ascii tildes ~~~~. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article status dispute

[edit]

Hi. I noticed that some tags have just been added to this article by someone else, claiming that it needs more citations and possibly contains original research. This doesn't seem to be the case in my opinion; the article is full of citations. But if it really is true, wouldn't the article need to be stripped of its "Good article" status? I think someone needs to look at this. All I can say is that the person who did this seems to have a track record of being disruptive. 108.95.130.150 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, i did not scroll all the way down to the production section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Cossey

[edit]

Should the appearance of transsexual actress Caroline Cossey be incorporated into the article? On the one hand, she had an uncredited bit role, and thus is hardly worthy of note; on the other hand, a number of urban legends have sprung up because of her part in the movie, including the mistaken belief that Carole Bouquet, the actress playing Melina Havelock, was in fact the transsexual. Would mentioning her role clear up any confusion that some readers might have—or simply make things worse? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may make things worse, and is—as far as this particular article is concerned—she was a she way before the film was made and so the impact on the film was nominal. We don't tend to dwell on the trivial stuff on the film page itself. Her personal history and situation is adequately covered on her talk page. That's just my take on it: others may disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirection

[edit]

The fourth paragraph, starting with "For Your Eyes ... ", mentions "10 years since Diamonds ... ", which makes it sound like there was some kind of gap between film production, when clearly there was not. What is the significance in the gap between this film and the other? What is the relevance of the statement? SquashEngineer (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: There clearly were other Bond films between 1971 and 1981 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_in_film#Albert_R._Broccoli_and_Harry_Saltzman_(1967%E2%80%931975) SquashEngineer (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on For Your Eyes Only (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films about Margaret Thatcher

[edit]

I am not sure that this is an appropriate category for the article to be in - the film is hardly about Margaret Thatcher, with her 'appearance' being restricted to an obvious gag at the end which lasts for less than a minute. Dunarc (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say about the categorization, but I thought it was inappropriate to not even mention the Thatcher appearance, as that was quite unusual for a Bond film—I think it's the only time the series has shown a real politician, even if only as a gag. So I added a very brief mention of it in the appropriate spot. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"accidentally trawling an old naval mine in the Ionian Sea"

[edit]

In the scene when Bond and Columbo attack Kristatos's warehouse, you can clearly see naval mines just like the one from the St. George's sinking (in fact, this is what Locque blows up to escape). Could it be that it wasn't an "old naval mine," but rather a mine that Kristatos planted?

Deane (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but speculative. None of the characters on screen refer to this, so it cannot be confirmed. The opening sequence on the trawler gives the impression that the incident is accidental, so the article wording is OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cite video

[edit]

The "cite video" template fields are messed up and causing CS1 errors. Instead of this:

title=Inside For Your Eyes Only|location=For Your Eyes Only – Ultimate Edition, Disk 2

it should be something like this:

title=For Your Eyes Only|chapter=Inside For Your Eyes Only|edition=Ultimate|volume=2

GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_Your_Eyes_Only_(film)&oldid=1207263257"