This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of James Bond on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This subject is featured in the Outline of James Bond, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 21 days may be automatically moved.
Removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status
I would like to state on the record that the removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status would not have occurred if the Wikipedia community had not insisted upon the article being split up. Thanks guys. 23skidoo 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: The last paragraph only lists two positive reviews. I'm sure for such a high-profile book there are more reviews than just these positives and more than just enough for two sentences.
5. Article stability? The stability of the article is not a problem.
6. Images?: You have used three book covers under the fair use rationale; however, they are not there for any real purpose. The second is for illustration in the plot summary. The last is in a section about a contraversial text on the front cover without displaying that text.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Hydrostatics 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of the Controversy section is uncited, and needs restructuring. Alientraveller 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
These same problems still exist. This is a novel - think of including sections such as: "Themes", "Writing style", "Reception", etc. You might look at the some of the novels that have become FAs for guidance such as Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Lord of the Rings, and The Well of Loneliness. Also, there is quite a bit of excellent literary criticism on Fleming and film criticism on the Bond films. You need to do some more research - that will provide you with the sources for the article and help you flesh out the discussion of the novel. Awadewit | talk 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again! I've volunteered to review this article for GAC, so I'll be posting comments/suggestions sometime in the next couple days. From first glance things look pretty good, so hopefully we'll have another Good Article on our hands in new time. I'll be back soon. María (yllosubmarine) 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there - great to have you back again and I hope this will be another smooth review! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being so patient, I was hoping to get to this sooner! Anyway, this is another interesting article; I'm especially pleased to see that it was once an FA, back when the book/film were squished together in the same space -- great job developing both articles separately! As before, for the most part my comments revolve around the prose. Here is how it stands against the criteria:
Well-written: For the most part; see issues below.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
Broad in its coverage: Yes.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.
Thunderball is the ninth book in Ian Fleming's James Bond series, first published in the UK by Jonathan Cape on 27 March 1961, where the initial print run of 50,938 copies quickly sold out. The story—the eighth full length James Bond novel by Fleming—is technically the first novelisation of a James Bond screenplay. -- The first sentence is somewhat long, and I'm not sure (as a Bond novice) how the ninth book/eighth full length novel relates to each other. How about rewording as: "...the ninth book in Ian Fleming's James Bond series, and the eighth full length James Bond novel. It was first published in the UK by Jonathan Cape on 27 March 1961, where the initial print run of 50,938 copies quickly sold out. Technically the first novelization of a James Bond screenplay, it was born from..."
The "born from" suggested above is because of the redundancy of "was a result of"... "was the result of" in the first paragraph, but any other rewording will work.
Both done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
At the clinic Bond encounters Count Lippe, a member of the Red Lightning Tong criminal organisation from Macau. When Bond learns this... -- Does "this" refer to Lippe being a member of the Red Lightning Tong? If so, best reword so it's less ambiguous.
The name of the health farm, Shrublands, was taken by Fleming from that of a house owned by the parents of his wife's friend... I think the "by Fleming" is rather understood here, since he's the one that wrote the book?
I hadn't heard of Buster Crabb before, so that was very interesting. I would suggest adding that Crabb was a frogman, since I initially read it as he was just a regular Joe hired by the M16. "undertaken on 19 April 1956 by frogman "Buster" Crabb"?
However, when the film was released in July 1959, it was poorly received by the critics and did not do well at the box office and Fleming became disenchanted with McClory's ability as a result. -- This reads somewhat clumsily. "it was poor received, and as a result Fleming became disenchanted..."?
Spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes? Either is fine, but it needs to be made consistent throughout the article.
Done; the only spaced emdash remaining is the use with dates, which I think is correct(?) - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
during which time Fleming was unwell—having heart attacks during the case itself -- There has to be a better way to word this; Fleming's article states he had a heart attack, but this seems to imply he had more than one at this time? "he suffered a heart attack/heart attacks during the case"?
That's about it. Very nice work! I found the plot a lot easier to follow than Dr. No, and the "Release and reception" section is particularly well done. I did some minor copy-editing throughout for punctuation and minor redundancies, so be sure to check and make sure I didn't misconstrue something. Once the above comments/suggestions have been resolved, I'll be happy to promote this to GA. On hold for now. María (yllosubmarine) 14:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
All covered, I think, but please let me know if there is something else you want me to look at, or if I've missed something. Cheers again - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Congrats on another GA. :) María (yllosubmarine) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)