Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/You Only Live Twice (novel)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2024 [1].

You Only Live Twice (novel)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bond novel You Only Live Twice was written when Fleming was at a low point in his life - court cases, health issues and ongoing unhappiness in his marriage - and he was running out of energy and enthusiasm for writing more stories. The novel itself is largely taken up with travelogue descriptions of Japan and its culture, and the main element within it – Bond v Blofeld – only takes up around 30 pages at the end. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • It was the last novel published Fleming in his lifetime
  • Eon Productions James Bond film series - Can a way be found to avoid the sea of blue?
    It's only two together, and avoiding it would mean either a lot of pointless words or semantic twisting; both would leave it reading awkwardly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In note b): On Her Majesty's Secret Service continues the story from On Her Majesty's Secret Service
  • Bond exacts revenge on Blofeld in a duel, Blofeld armed with a sword and Bond with a wooden staff - Can "the former" and "the latter" be used to avoid repeating the names?
  • Why does Books and Bookmen link to Hansom Books if there's an article for it?
    When I first wrote this article, there wasn't a page for B&B - thanks for spotting the page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleming wrote to his friend, Richard Hughes, the Far Eastern correspondent of The Sunday Times - I feel the first comma is not needed.
  • Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker, considers the novel - No need for that comma either.
  • Charmian was the forename of Fleming's cousin who married his brother Richard - If there are more cousins, maybe "the Fleming's cousin who married his brother Richard"; if that was the only one, then "Fleming's cousin, who married his brother Richard", with the comma.
    I think this is probably okay as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blofeld's name is taken from comes from Tom Blofeld
  • So much of the book is taken up with the description that the literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek describes the work as a "semi-exotic travelogue" - Given that we have "description" already there, can a verb different to "describes" be used? Deems, maybe?
  • Fleming's two companions on his trip, Richard Hughes and Tiger Saito became - A comma is missing.
    All done down to here, except where I've commented otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things:

  • The theme of Britain's declining position in the world is also dealt with in conversations between Bond and Tanaka, Tanaka voices Fleming's own concerns about the state of Britain in the 1950s and early 60s - I feel there's something missing after the comma. Maybe an "in which"?
  • Duval Smith believed that "the background is excellent ... Mr. Fleming has caught the exact 'feel' of Japan", - It should end with a full stop rather than with a comma.
  • Maggie Ross, in The Listener, was also a little dissatisfied - That reads a bit weirdly, given that the previous critic was not dissatisfied.
  • I think it's a bit odd how Maurice Richardson's opinion is cut in half by another paragraph.
    There are a few people who have their reviews in more than one place - I've tried to deal with the reviews more or less by themes, rather than grouping by individual reviewer. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Alavense. All done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses. It was a nice read and I think the article meets the criteria. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:You_Only_Live_Twice-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead
Thanks Nikkimaria; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I commented at some length at the peer review, with, on the whole, minor quibbles. All my comments were thoroughly attended to, and after another read-through now I have no further comments, and am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 14:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Incoming! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It feels strange to describe the book as the "concluding chapter of the "Blofeld Trilogy"" before we establish who Blofeld is, all the way at the end of the paragraph
  • "critics were more muted in their reactions, generally delivering mixed reviews of the novel" feels somewhat redundant
  • I really do treasure the names in Bond novels, they just don't make 'em like that anymore
  • "You Only Live Twice giving Bond" - I think a comma between Twice and giving
  • "Fleming based his novel in Japan..." the sentence has "visit" twice. The last clause is a little redundant - you could safely open with "after a three-day visit to Japan in 1959" or something similar
    • Alternately, you could leave the first two clauses alone and split the third into a new sentence where you also introduce the journalists earlier: "He was accompanied on his three-day trip by two journalists: Hughes and Torao "Tiger" Saito"".
  • not sure you need both "accompanied and guided" either way
  • "The Anglicist Christoph Lindner notes that Fleming, through Bond, parallels Blofeld with Caligula, Nero and Hitler" - how does he do this through Bond?
  • "hat this exemplifies Blofeld's actions as being on "a titanic scale", as was much of the criminal action throughout the Bond series.[42] Lindner continues that the crimes perpetrated are not against individuals per se, but entire nations or continents." - this might flow better if it were together, since the "titanic scale" is the fact that his crimes are against entire nations. I might split the sentence after "Hitler" and then combine the titanic scale bit with this bit
  • "and only meets threat when" - could be tightened to "except when...", which also loses the second use of "threat" in one sentence
  • "western viewpoint" but "Western tropes"? capitalisation should be consistent. MOS says you're allowed to make minor typographical fixes to quotes, so you should be safe to de-cap it here
  • "on episodes, that are" lose the comma here
  • Did anyone comment on the fact that Howard asked for en "epicanthic eye" - presumably an Asian person's eye - and got a toad instead?
    Not in the sources, if they did. (The Man with the Golden Typewriter has much of his correspondence, but the change is not mentioned in there, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels odd to mention the page count under "Style" but not under "Publication history"
    Slightly odd, but I think we need to show how much of the book is taken up with travelogue. I would have put the figure in the Publication history (as I have with the US printing), but it seems redundant to repeat the information. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done down to here with these edits. Happy to hear if you have any more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, is it 260 pages or 212? Iles and the infobox say 260, but Style section says 212
    I think that's the edition he was using at the time. The first edition was 256 pages (I've corrected the IB), and as it's different to the Style number, I've now added it to the Publication section too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the link to The Bookman (London) is correct - it says it ceased publication in 1943, but this book came out in the 60s
    Tweaked - it was Bookman (the journal of the Book Society), rather than The Bookman, the standalone magazine. - SchroCat (talk)

Actually, that's all I have for the rest of it. The other changes look solid to me. I'm a support, the remaining two comments are minor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PMC: I've made some tweaks for the last couple of points too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll try to review this over the next few days. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " but also managed to fit in a trip to a geisha house" - why "also", since this seems to have been part of his original plans?
  • Blofeld's actions—like many of the criminal activities in the Bond series—were on "a titanic scale.[42] - missing a closing quotation mark
  • There's the above statement and also " Lindner continues that the crimes perpetrated are not against individuals per se, but entire nations or continents", but this doesn't seem to square with Blofeld's primary nefarious activity in this novel being running an assisted suicide operation
    I've tweaked this slightly to remove one of the quotes, but it's the 'mass market' death I think he is getting at here, although it's not spelled out in a nice bite-size, ready-to-use quote that can be dropped in. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first 112 pages—in a book of 212 pages—" - the book is elsewhere stated to be 256 pages long. I wonder if this would be better presented as a rough proportion, given the variation in book length with editions
    I've reworded to stress it was an edition held by that source. Does that work? (I think it's better than saying 'over half', but I'm happy to go with that if you prefer). - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now; will resume with the Themes section. Hog Farm Talk 23:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "co-operative relationship between Bond and Leiter in the earlier books" - who is Leiter?
  • "as at 2024, has never been out of print." - I'm unconvinceed that the cited source of Worldcat search results really supports this

I think that's all my comments. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. All dealt with in these edits. Happy to go over anything you disagree with, or anything new you have to comment on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a huge fan of the handling of the "never been out of print", but I'm not going to quibble over something that minor very much. I'll go ahead and support. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]

Let's have a looksie.

  • He based his book in Japan after a stay in 1959 as part of a trip around the world; his experience was published as Thrilling Cities. - Is Thrilling Cities important enough for the lede mention?
    I think so. It's only a brief reference and omitting it seems a bit wrong, somehow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • critics were more muted in their reactions, with many critical - any chance of using a synonym for "critical", given critic is only a few words ahead of it?
  • Instead, Tanaka asks Bond to kill Dr. Guntram Shatterhand, who operates a politically embarrassing "Garden of Death" of poisonous plants in a rebuilt ancient castle on the island of Kyushu; people visit the grounds to commit suicide - Feels a bit awkward. What about "Instead, Tanaka asks Bond to kill Dr. Guntram Shatterhand, who operates a politically embarrassing "Garden of Death" in a rebuilt ancient castle on the island of Kyushu; people visit the grounds, replete with poisonous plants, to commit suicide."
  • the matter was complicated by the presence of the royal arms - Worth having a footnote as to why?
  • It was written in January and February 1963 in Jamaica at Fleming's Goldeneye estate. - You detailed his time in Goldeneye two paragraphs previously. Is it worth moving the pertinent information up there?
  • The original manuscript was 170 pages long and of all Fleming's works, it was the one that had least revisions prior to publication. - This feels like it might be more at home in paragraph immediately preceding.
  • Who was Monique Panchaud de Bottens?
    It's covered in the first para of the Inspirations section - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hughes was also the model for "Old Craw" in John le Carré's The Honourable Schoolboy. - Would this be better in a footnote?
  • They managed to undertake all the events, except the sumo match, but they managed to fit in a trip to a geisha house, where Fleming's attendant geisha, Masami, served as the inspiration for Trembling Leaf, a geisha in the novel. - This is a preponderance of subclauses. Perhaps split the sentence a bit?
  • In writing from his western viewpoint for a western audience, Hatcher considers that the novel "is a comprehensive anthology of western tropes and stereotypes about Japan". - Perhaps "Being written from a western viewpoint ..."? "In writing" might be read as Hatcher taking the western viewpoint. Or maybe even "He considers the novel, having been written from a western viewpoint for a western audience, to be "comprehensive anthology of western tropes and stereotypes about Japan".
  • Benson sees an increased use of imagery to reinforce this approach, to give an effect which is "horrific, dreamlike and surrealistic". - Does he provide any specific examples?
    Unfortunately not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning that Irma Bunt escapes?
    She doesn't (or at least her death is left unsaid). Bond knocks her out in the castle, which subsequently explodes. She is a sort of 'Schrodinger's villain' at that point, as she could potentially both have escaped, or died - the latter being more likely in Fleming's world, but not in the mind of a continuation writer. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aki hasn't been introduced at the time of her first mention; was she created for the film?
    Yes - now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • seeking revenge on the person who killed his partner by strangling him and defeating the main villain of the story and destroying his "garden of death" on a private island between Russia and Japan - This feels a bit like a run-on sentence. Is it possible to rework the summary a bit? For example, this implies that the person who killed his partner and the main villain are different; that may be worth making more explicit.

Overall, your usual splendid work.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, great to see your name pop up on my watchlist again. I've covered all these (except where commented on) in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

Support from HAL

[edit]

All of my comments surround superifical prose nitpicks, most of which you can take as non-crucial suggestions:

  • Maybe change "ten books of the Bond series" to the more concise "ten Bond series books" or "ten Bond books"
    It’s slightly wordier, but I think the current version is the stronger one. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The original manuscript was 170 pages long" - "long" is redundant
  • Could the circuitous "undertook some further work on" be replaced with something like "further revised" or "further polished"?
  • I am not sure if it can be improved but the sentence starting "Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker..." is very choppy, being separated by five commas.
  • Maybe revise "Fleming took the elements... and added them to" to the more concise ""Fleming added the elements... to"
  • If it's not too ungainly, could you specify when Thrilling Cities was written or published?
  • For clarity, could you specify that Boodle's is a gentleman's club?
  • Maybe wikilink Ginza
  • Should "Sybilline" be lowercase?
    I don’t think so, as it relates to a connection to one of the Sibyls. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like either way is correct. I'll yield. ~ HAL333 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of using present tense to describe the analysis of deceased critics/historians, as with "Umberto Eco considers the character...". It's especially inconsistent as you use the past tense for critics later on (e.g. In The Guardian, Francis Iles wrote).
  • "The critic for The Spectator" — why not mention his/her name?
    Like the review in The Times, the name of the reviewer isn’t given. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 19:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

You know, I am pretty sure I've seen these sources in a different source review. Jon Gilbert can probably be linked in some of the sources. Is "Macintyre, Ben (2008). For Your Eyes Only" the title of the book or of a review or something? Because some of the stuff sourced to it is analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. I would probably specify what The Times we are talking about. Save for using ISBN and OCLC alternatively, it seems like the source formatting is consistent and the sources used reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jo-Jo. I'll go over the other articles and link Gilbert. Macintyre is a book (it's in the book section and has an ISBN). There is only one The Times of any note, so I think we're safe as is. The ISBNs are used when the book is published with one (post-1967(ish) publications); anything older that wasn't published with an ISBN has an OCLC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the sourcing (I spot-checked a few quotes too), I kinda wonder if the "critical reception" section is a bit too reliant on quotes. I've seen other "reception" sections in other FACses that led to the nominations failing for not meeting prose requirements and the nominator being pointed to Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, but I don't normally review reception sections so I wouldn't know if this one has problems. Mike Christie, I recall you noting such problems on other FAC nominations; what say you? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the reception section and I see what you mean. SchroCat, would it be possible to extract some summarizing statements for each paragraph and use that to reduce the direct quotes a bit? From eyeballing it I think it's over fifty percent quotes at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will trim some of them slightly, but as they all say different things, or focus on slightly different aspects in different ways, I don't want to remove too much or rely solely on one or two per para - that starts putting too much emphasis on my personal choice of what I think is a 'nice' quote, and not enough on what the reviewers themselves have said. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few that I think could be easily combined via some variation of "several reviewers said" -- the first three quotes in the last para are all positive, for example. But it sounds like we have different ideas of what a reception section should do -- I think it should function as a summary of the reception, so that the reader comes away with a general idea such as "most critics didn't like it and several thought it was one of the weakest Bond novels, with criticism focusing on the implausible threats and ... Those who did like it commented on ...". The reception section as you have it does give a reader the information, but the reader has to assemble the overall picture themselves. I think we provide the reader better service if we do that work and use quotes as illustration of those points. I also think that doing it that way pushes the paragraphs towards a more thematic organization, which I think is beneficial -- for example the third paragraph starts with positives but finishes with negatives again. That makes for a less coherent reading experience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already (broadly) thematically organised and it already functions as a summary of the reception. I don't have an issue with having a paragraph which contains both positive and negative reactions and I disagree that it's not a coherent reading experience: this work divided critics and the reviews show that. I'm not going to group paragraphs by whether a review is positive or negative on a specific point, but cover all the views on a particular aspect. I've already said that I'm going to do some trimming, and will do so shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention this is done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had to think about this for a bit before responding. I've opposed in the past over reception sections that have this many quotes, but I'm not going to oppose here, for a couple of reasons. One is that other than the quotes, I think this is a well-written section; we disagree about the right way to structure these sections but I can't say your way is badly written. In addition, I trust your writing judgement; you're one of the nominators at FAC whose judgement of prose is good enough to give me pause when we disagree. (And I can't support because I haven't read the whole article.)
When I wrote WP:RECEPTION, I asked at FAC if it would be fair for me to oppose an article, citing it. What I think I'll do now is wait till this FAC is over (to avoid unfairly targetting it) and then post a note at WT:FAC asking others to comment on RECEPTION's recommendation to cut down quotes, and cite this article as a possible counter-example. I don't think a general principle is likely to emerge from such a discussion, but I'd like to hear other opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MSincccc

[edit]

Support from Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, I'm glad I finally found a bit of time to check the article on my fave Bond novel. If it's in large part a travelogue, so be it, it was the first work that made me long to visit Japan, and I wasn't disappointed. Plus Bond's humour and cynicism make it easily his best characterisation IMO. Anyway, to the main stuff:

  • Copyedited a bit but most of the heavy lifting has been done, let me know any concerns.
  • I note the above comments re. the reception section but evidently some trimming has occurred because I didn't find it terribly overburdened with quotes, those remaining generally seem useful enough to justify their presence.
    To be fair, I did cut some of the quotes out to reduce it down to what there is there now, but I’m heartened to hear you say I’ve stopped at about the right point. - SchroCat (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I thought you might alter is to merge the Times reviews, which occur at the top of the section and towards the end. I assume we're talking about the same review after all?

Well done as usual, looking forward to TMWTGG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/You_Only_Live_Twice_(novel)/archive1&oldid=1248238490"