Talk:Thunderball (novel)

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)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Although this is mostly well-written, this could do with being copy-edited or gone over a little bit more thoroughly. The last paragraph is poorly written and stubbish.

• •  Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: The accuracy of this article has no apparent problems.

3. Broad in coverage?: This article is about the novel, yet there is a large section about the film.

• •  Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:30, 21 August 2007 (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.

• •  Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

• •  Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

GA fail

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)

GA/R result

Since the review lasted quite awhile, I figured I might as well mention it here, the articles status was unchanged. Jayron seems to of offered some helpful suggestions though, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 29. Homestarmy 03:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rights

What happened to the film rights when McClory died? Emperor001 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thunderball (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) 19:08, 1 December 2011 (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:

1. Well-written: For the most part; see issues below.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
3. Broad in its coverage: Yes.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Lead

• 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)

Plot

• 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.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Characters and themes

• Felix Leiter had his largest role to date in a Bond story and much of his humour came though... -- The previous sentence is in present tense, while this is in past tense. Consistency is needed.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Background

• 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?

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• 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"?

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• 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[23] 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..."?

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• In November 1959 Fleming left to travel round the world on behalf of The Sunday Times... -- "round"? Either make it "around", or nix it all together.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• 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"?

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Adaptations

• The film was produced by as the third Eon Productions film... -- "by as"? Not sure what is meant here.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

• There are a few sources missing publisher locations, but otherwise everything looks good.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

End of Controversy

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/movies_battle_for_bond_is_over.php3?t=&s=&id=03598

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the controversy over rights is finally over? Emperor001 (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)