Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From Russia, with Love (novel)/archive1

From Russia, with Love (novel)

From Russia, with Love (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/From Russia, with Love (novel)/archive1

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

From Russia, with Love is the fifth in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories, and the one where he got his structure and form bang on the nose, according to many. It's a 'proper' spy novel (as opposed to its predecessor) and was written during one of the cold points of the Cold War. This nom follows a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

Just a couple of drive-by comments, more to follow later:

• Publication history: why not give the publisher of the American edition.

• Overlooked as most of the main sources don't give it because it's not that important, but I'll track down a source and add it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reception: "From Russia, with Love received positive reviews from critics" – is that what the Parker source says, because this section includes a few less-than-complementary reviews? The lead says it better ("... received broadly positive reviews ...").

• Yes, as does Benson: both do not shy away from the term, even though we have in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Images: none of the images have any alt text.

• I'll add it shortly, but it's a 'nice to have' not a cast-iron necessity. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I'd argue with that: WP:ALT seems to me a prescription rather than mere advice. Tim riley talk 18:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That's all for now. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Bruce1ee - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• One more comment: Ref 63 ("The President's Voracious Reading Habits") doesn't have a page number. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nice catch: now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Everything seems fine now. Well done. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Bruce1ee: much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Excellent article, could find little fault with it at the PR. A clear FA quality article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Doc - your PR input was invaluable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Very well put together. Just a few thoughts:

• "The novel was first published in the UK" - should UK be expanded?
• Sources are all from reliable publishers.
• No dead links.
• No dablinks. FrB.TG (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks FrB.TG - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support - looking in again, as a brief exception to a few months' Wikibreak, I find my impression at the PR stage confirmed: this article is of FA standard, meeting all the criteria. Rereading it, I find no drafting points to quibble at. There are a couple of words that I might hyphenate were I the author, but de gustibus, and there is no reason to object to the unhyphenated form. Tim riley talk 18:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim - feel free to hyphenate where you would. I tend to use it too much, so gave pobably over compensated here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Source link for lead image is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Now replaced. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Which edition is the page number given in the infobox for?
• FN14: page?
• How are you ordering multiple sources with the same authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• All now tweaked. Many thanks as always. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Support – SchroCat responded to all of the issues I brought up during the peer review and FAC. I'm basically ready to support, but I'm just noticing a few final things as I do one more read-through.
Plot

• "They persuade an attractive young cipher clerk, Corporal Tatiana Romanova, to falsely defect..." I was wondering whether something like "pretend to defect" would be clearer and more precise. I'm not sure that I would use "falsely" exactly in this way.

• I'm happier with "falsely" over "pretend to". If there was another suggestion I would happily consider it tho. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• "After dinner, at which Nash has drugged Romanova, Bond wakes up..." Was Bond drugged too? The caption of the image you deleted I think also said he was drugged, and here it says he wakes up (in the restaurant car)?
• (Minor comment) "Bond attacks and Grant is killed as Bond and Romanova escape." Here "as" possibly suggests the two things possibly happen at the same time, but I imagined Bond killing him and then escaping?
• "Later, in Paris, after successfully delivering Romanova and the booby-trapped Spektor to his superiors" Maybe nothing needs to be changed, but I was just curious whether "deliver" means his superiors just wanted to question Romanova, or whether in the end Bond caught onto her part in the scheme and she was "under arrest". Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  

• The first: she was, afer all, supposed to be a defector. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Background and writing history

• I'm very confused by the timeline here: In August 1956 Fleming commissioned Chopping to do the cover, and the book came out in April 1957, but Boothroyd wrote a letter to Fleming after the book had been published, and Boothroyd's suggested gun was used as the model for the cover art? The image of the book cover (with the gun and the rose) in the infobox says that was the first edition. I must be missing something obvious.

• Wrong book name! I'm tweaked it a little to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Minor comment) Just wanted to check whether it was intentional that in the boxed quotes from Fleming and Boothroyd you use spaced en dashes, while everywhere else you use unspaced em dashes (maybe they appear that way in the original quotes?). Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  

• Yes, the originals use spaced dashes, so I have. I think I have swapped such dashes around in other works (as we are able to do with minor formatting issues) so if you'd prefer consistency, I'm happy to oblige. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Characters

• "Benson sees the other characters in the book to be well developed": This wording may suggest that he doesn't see Bond as being well developed. Was that intentional?
  

I think that's all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Moisejp. If I've madeno coment to the cotrary, I've adopted your comments accordingly. Thanks very much for your careful work here and at the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Perfect. All of my concerns really are now addressed, and the support I mentioned above stands. I went ahead and changed the dashes to em dashes for consistency. Moisejp (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Moisejp: much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support -- Not that it's really needed but I reviewed/passed an earlier version of the article at GAN and stopped by at the recent PR, so will recuse from coord duties to complete my involvement. Prose-wise I just tweaked/trimmed a couple of things, nothing that vital. I know the book well and feel that Gavin has given a comprehensive account of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Not having participated in the peer review, this is my first reading, so I have a few points to raise, mostly of a minor nature:

Lead

• "Fleming wrote the story in early 1956 at his Goldeneye estate in Jamaica; at the time he did not know whether he wanted to write another Bond book." I assume it means he thought at the time that this might be his final Bond book, but this needs stating more clearly.
• "The book's sales were supported..." I think "boosted"

Plot

• "They persuade an attractive young cipher clerk, Corporal Tatiana Romanova, to falsely defect from her post in Istanbul, claiming to have fallen in love with Bond after seeing a photograph on his file." I imagine that Soviet spymasters instructed rather than "persuaded" underlings to do their bidding. Also the syntax is dodgy; a suggested rephrase: "to falsely defect from her post in Istanbul having, she would claim, fallen in love..." etc
• The detail about gypsies, two women fighting, and Bulgarian agents doesn't seem central to the plot and could perhaps be omitted.
• "Bond encounters Romanova" - sounds as if by chance. Perhaps "meets"
• "and she, Bond and Kerim" → "and the three" (avoiding names repetition)
• The second "with the Spektor" could be omitted.

Background and writing history

• "One of the significant re-writes changed Bond's fate": the plot summary reveals that Bond's fate was equivocal, and it would be interesting to know what was Fleming's original intention.

Plot inspirations

• "following his involvement in a near-fatal crash" – perhaps give a date for this experience.

Characters

• Sentence length: Look at the one beginning "The novelist Raymond Benson..."
• Close repetition of "nervous"
• "that Fleming also wrote" → "that Fleming also created"
• Perhaps specify "the short story "Risico"
• "...sees the character as having some of the moral qualities of the villain which are used in support of 'good'." Beats me, I'm afraid.
• "Eco considers the Russians "so monstrous..." etc. Does Eco mean actual Russians, or the Russians as depicted in the book?
• Charlie Higson's opinions presumably carry weight because he is a later Bond writer. Perhaps make this point in the text (you do so for Amis later on)

Style

• No issues here.

Themes

• The preface note "indicates" or "signals", rather than "ensures". I'd rephrase: "indicates that in this novel, 'cold war tensions...' " etc.
• "With the British Empire in decline, the journalist William Cook observed..." Needs to be the other way round: "The journalist William Cook observed that, with the British Empire in decline,..." etc. And for consistency, "observed" should be "observes"
• Bond's statement that "we don't show teeth any more—only gums" appears to recognise the decline of British power, but not the illusion that "England might once again be placed at the centre of world affairs", so "this", in "this manifested itself", needs more precise definition.
• The word "consider" is perhaps overused in this section. There are alternatives, e.g. "suggest", "argue". "maintain" or the good old "according to", for variety's sake (but not, please, "opined")

Publication history

• The Edens' visit was in November 1956, some months before the book's publication, so I'd reword: "In November 1956 the Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, had visited..." etc
• "a boost in" → "a boost to", and later "a boost of" should be similarly amended.
• Pipelink Pan (the pipes of Pan?)

Reception

• "received positive reviews" should perhaps read "received mainly positive reviews", as there were some dissidents.
• I'd describe Cheyney as a "crime fiction writer of the 1930s and 1940s" rather than the, as there were undoubtedly others.
• ("Opined" - oh, dear)
• "went on to write" → "wrote" (or possibly "further wrote")?

Adaptations

• You describe the Daily Express here as a "newspaper", which you didn't do when you mentioned it earlier. The description is arguable, but if employed, should be used at the first mention.
• "had adapted in such a way"? What does that imply?
• We have "adapted", "adapted" and "adaptation" in very close proximity; some variation advised.
• You might mention that the film has a somewhat different, less enigmatic ending.
• I'd give the year of the radio adaptation at the beginning rather than the end of the relevant sentence.

And that's all. I don't see any major issues with above and will be happy to support in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian. These are my tweaks based on your comments. I think I've covered them all, and hope I've done them justice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Yes, fine. I've done a few more prose fixes, fuss-pot that I am – you might wan't to check them (small stuff). Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Brian, Many thanks as always for your eagle eye - it is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Followed the PR, and made a few edits. In fine shape. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Ceoil for your PR edits - they were just the ticket. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Allow me to join the pile-on. I read all the way through the article and didn't spot anything I would have changed. Well done. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Giants - mkuch appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Very quick comment: If Dr. No is the follow up to this book, I think it should be mentioned a bit more prominently than in the infobox. We end the synopsis with a cliffhanger, which makes this a bit more pressing than in other books. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• 'Hi Chris, yes, I've now added a line in the body to,that effect. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Still doesn't say it was a sequel "By January 1957 Fleming had decided he would write another story, and began work on Dr. No" could also imply Dr. No is a prequel or interquel (like Red Rabbit). Perhaps something like ""By January 1957 Fleming had decided he would write another story, and began work on Dr. No, in which Bond recovers from his poisoning and is sent to Jamaica" or something of the ilk. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• OK, now added. (I'd not thought of the prequel possibility), cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks great. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)