Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Fleming/archive2

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:54, 20 September 2012 [1].

Ian Fleming

Nominators: SchroCat (^ • @) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC) and Cassianto ^Talk 10:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the 50th anniversary of the Bond film series, what better way to celebrate than with FA status for Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond. He was a fascinating individual: well-connected, a good war record in naval intelligence and the author of a series of books that ended up as reading matter for the great and good which has also left an enviable legacy on film. Settle down with a shaken martini, light up a cigarette from Morland of Grosvenor Street (with three gold bands on the filter), and read on… - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made some tweaks. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dank—it's much appreciated. Good edits too! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help Dank. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work too, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What happened to the old infobox photograph? It was much better.—indopug (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it failed in it's licensing. My co-nom will have to answer that one when he gets back from holiday. -- Cassianto ^Talk 08:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It did: we removed it under advice. I actually prefer this one too - it's a more Fleming-esque pose

Further World War II should be the Second World War in British English AFAIK. IMO there needs to be more Bond in the lead—there's little from the Writing section, especially the themes, it appears. I feel there's also too much about his family. On a related note, must the infobox link to every (leave alone any) relative of his? In 1960s, why is C-C-B-B not given a paragraph for itself like each Bond book? Surely it's as popular and notable?—indopug (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have caught all WW II's and changed them. Please tell me if I have missed any. --Cassianto ^Talk 08:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got the rest.—indopug (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also beefed up the CCBB paragraph, so it can stand alone. I hope you approve - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, I don't feel too kindly to any of the wives being in there, let alone a few. How do you want me to tackle this bearing in mind SchroCat's last visit. -- Cassianto ^Talk 08:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was (and still am) for infobox removal, and I think you two were, too. But clearly there was immense fallout over that so let's not go there. Would keeping the infobox but cutting the Relatives out be a reasonable compromise for the pro-infobox editors? (I think Peter should be in the lead as a major inspiration for Bond anyway)—indopug (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - they were rather anti any further tinkering and I suspect it'll all mindlessly kick off again if there are any further cuts, which having this article as some sort of battlefield for their opinions is something we all want to avoid! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a bit about the Bond stuff in the lede later today. -- Cassianto ^Talk 08:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. SchroCat, check and copy edit if necersary. -- Cassianto ^Talk 21:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re the "I feel there's also too much about his family", as far as I can see, there are only two mentions in the lede; one for his wife and one for his son. I think this is enough, although we could lose the sons name as he is not notable in his own right. Or are you talking about the family mentions within the info box? -- Cassianto ^Talk 21:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support great work with no issues, SchroCat. (and I hope we can work on making one of the movies featured, an wonder how long it'll take for you to make an Ian Fleming GT). igordebraga ≠ 01:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't see any issues...--Kürbis (✔) 07:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Check for conisistency in wikilinking - for example, you link The Independent in both FN4 and FN8, but The Times in 3 and not 7

I have chosen to unlink the second of The Independent mentions. Is this preferable, or would it be better to link all four? -- Cassianto ^Talk 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-linked (Sorry Cass!) and ensured The Times is also linked. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare FNs 1 and 21, or 156 and 159

OK, I think they are now all the same. -- Cassianto ^Talk 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN75: formatting

Done (I think, but if I've "corrected" the wrong thing, please let me know!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN102: page?

Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you include publishers for magazines

Now done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN206: don't italicize agencies

done. -- Cassianto ^Talk 14:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, what makes Griswold a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was some debate about this on an FL, List of James Bond novels and stories which went to a Reliable Sources discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 124#John Griswold's Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories. To summarise, Griswold goes a little further than the usual self-published sources, in that:

The book appears on the list of reference books for Ian Fleming Publications. Ian Fleming Publications is Ian Fleming's family company, holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works, still connected to the Fleming family and the people who license the Bond name to Eon Productions, the people who bring us all the Bond films. They are, therefore, the official repository of all matters relating to Ian Fleming and James Bond.
The preface for the Griswold book is written by Andrew Lycett, author of the Ian Fleming biography (Lycett, Andrew (1996). Ian Fleming. London: Phoenix. ISBN 978-1-85799-783-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help));
One of the forwards was written by Zoe Watkins, from the Fleming copyright holders, Ian Fleming Publications;
The second forward was written by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion Benson, Raymond (1988). The James Bond Bedside Companion. London: Boxtree Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85283-233-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).
The book has also been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009 , pp. 131-149(19) (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/155280109X368688)

Many thanks for your time on this one NM, it's hugely appreciated. I think we've covered everything, but if we've missed anything then please let us know. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto from me Nikkimaria. I hope our responses meet your concerns. -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. TBr and ley 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks TB—your support is much appreciated! - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks Tate. -- Cassianto ^Talk 04:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Further to my previous review, the article has been improved with the removal of two suspect images, and the addition of solid material to support the sketch of Bond- great work. The free images are all fine; their licenses seem to check out. The only potential problem is that the current lead image is, according to the rationale, probably owned by Express Newspapers/Getty Images- our use of press images like this is often very questionable, due to the rather obscure non-free content criterion 2. Basically, if this is a press shot for sale as an illustration of Fleming, when we use it without buying the right to do so, we potentially replace the original market value. As such, it would be preferable to not use a press shot like this- perhaps one which was released as a publicity photo, if one ever was, would be far preferable (a quick Google Search throws up this, which according to a blog, was "a publicity photo used by Signet Books"). Alternatively, one used on the cover of a book at some point may be more suitable (this one isn't ideal, but there may be more- you're more likely to know than I). Basically, if an image is for sale, it's something we want to be avoiding; we'd prefer to use an image which has been, in some way, released for use by the media at some point. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review (again) JM, it is much appreciated. I agree with the replacement of the lede image, and love the first of the two images you have mentioned. I don't particularly like the current lede image as, IMO, it appears characterless and bland. SchroCat and I are in discussions about what's best to do. -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks JM—your thought are hugely appreciated. After consultation with my co-nom, we've gone with your first suggestion of Signet Books. Many thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 00:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for taking this issue seriously. I'm happy with the image use in this article. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JM - your thoughts and input are very welcome in such a tricky area! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist A-Class Review. Having checked changes since then and tweaked a couple of things here and there, happy to support for FA. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, cheers Ian. -- Cassianto ^Talk 04:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news—thanks very much, Ian. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic news: huge thanks for all the constructive criticism that has enabled this article to get to FA. Many thanks to all. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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