Talk:Production of the James Bond films/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schrocat, I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one--sorry you've had to wait so long for a review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great: many thanks - and no worries about the wait, there's been a few other bits to do elsewhere! - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses and fixes. I'll continue checking this one tonight, and hopefully will get through it, mostly depending on whether my daughter stays asleep. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I got distracted by a few other things, so unfortunately didn't make it through the full article tonight. Below are a few initial quibbles to start you off. I've also been doing some copyediting as I go for grammar, style, and minor MOS tweaks. Please double-check that I haven't inadvertently introduced any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

My preliminary impression is that this is looking good. Thanks for all your hard work to get this organized and up to its current quality! More tomorrow -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always enjoyable to work on the big "overview" topics, especially after having gone over so much Bond ground recently. I've had a spin over your copy edits, and they are all improvements on what was there previously, so many thanks for those. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The series has grossed just over US$6 billion to date" -- I'd suggest adding an "as of" to this figure in place of "to date" per WP:REALTIME, so the article doesn't quickly go out of date.

Good point: done. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1954 the American CBS television network paid Ian Fleming $1,000[3] ($8,549 in 2013 dollars[4]) to adapt his first novel, Casino Royale, into a one-hour television adventure[5] as part of their dramatic anthology series Climax Mystery Theater, which ran between October 1954 and June 1958.[6] It was adapted for the screen by Anthony Ellis and Charles Bennett" -- this paragraph confused me a bit. If Fleming got paid to adapt the novel, did the two other screenwriters then readapt it? Or is the sense here simply that CBS paid Fleming for the right to adapt it?

For the rights - now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"he was selected after Eon had been rejected by Patrick McGoohan^[1] and they had rejected both Richard Johnson" -- this sentence confuses me. it's odd phrasing to say that McGoohan "rejected" Eon. Maybe we could say instead that he rejected the part? Also, is the "they" here Eon as a group, or Broccoli and Fleming? Last, is there a name missing after that "both" -- "they had rejected both Johnson and Joe Schmo"?

Reworked the lot. Hope it reads better now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The set for Goldfinger's factory is said to be at Pinewood, while later it says this filming took place in Switzerland. I assume that means the sequence was a mix of the two, but I wonder if there's a way to add just a few words clarifying this. ("and additional footage for the Goldfinger's factory sequence")

Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Ian Fleming had always considered that Bond was a possibility for the cinema" -- I'm not entirely sure what this means--something like "considered that they could be adapted for the cinema"?

Reworded as per your suggestion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made it through the Eon films, will finish tomorrow:

" since Mankiewicz knew he was a jazz fan, suggested they film in New Orleans" -- this is mildly confusing to me--why did Hamilton make the suggestion because of Mankiewicz's knowledge of his jazz fandom (if that phrasing makes sense)? Or is it Mankiewicz who made the suggestion?

Yes, it is a little on the confusing side! Now reworked to provide clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"with three days shooting exterior scenes with the St Georges" -- what is the St Georges?

Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" They resumed pre-production following MGM's exit " -- who is "they" here?

"Eon" now added for clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a more general note, I'm concerned in some places the context may fall a little short of WP:WAF, particularly in mentioning character names without a hint of their role in the story. I've cleaned up a very few of these, but haven't been too thorough yet. Phrases like "the obsession with which Bond pursues Sanchez on behalf of Leiter and his dead wife " or " Blofeld's volcano hideaway set" need a moment's context to indicate who these characters are (and you should probably give the characters' full names on first use). Phrases like "for the moon buggy scenes" could be rewritten as the "scenes in which Bond drives a moon buggy". This one could probably use a top-to-bottom look for this, unfortunately. I'll try to start pointing out more of these as I go along. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very probably! I have a overly high degree of familiarity with the material, so it's obvious to me, but certainly won't be for the majority of readers. I'll do a run through to see if I can nail down as many as I can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a runthrough and made a series of tweaks, which I think covers all the relevant points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Would it be possible to add a header or caption to the Timeline--"Timeline of Eon-produced James Bond films", something like that? (This only shows the Eon films, correct?) -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a play and I'm not sure how this can be done. I've tried adding to the template on the page, and into the source code, but neither works. Any thoughts on how to add one? I agree that there should be one—it sits there without any indication of what it is otherwise, but I'm just not sure on the technical side. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inestimable Betty Logan has provided the fix on this now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Eon

Wow, you and Betty are quick! Thanks for fixing all these things practically as fast as I can point them out. Only one thing left before I turn to the checklist:

"with five different directors helming different segments of the film, Ken Hughes, John Huston, Joseph McGrath, Robert Parrish, Val Guest and Richard Talmadge" -- Admittedly my math doesn't really kick in until my second cup of morning coffee, but I keep getting six when I count these up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake that probably adequately sums up the film itself, really! Now clarified - it's both five and six simultaneously... - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Okay, I made a few more tiny tweaks. Now I'm on to the checklist. Thanks again for your patience with my many comments and tweaks, I think we're moving into the home stretch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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.	Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Fantastic news: many thanks indeed for all your attention copy edits and comments here; your time and effort is much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference McGoohan Obit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[McGoohan_Obit-1] Cite error: The named reference McGoohan Obit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]