Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)

Movie Poster + Infobox

I was hoping to start putting the official movie posters on all the James Bond film articles. I thought I would start here. If anyone doesn't think the design on the article currently is ok, I'm open to making it look better or adding certain information or even removing some info. K1Bond007 02:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I thought I'd mention this here instead of sending you a PM. The box looks good, but I don't think you need to have the title repeated at the top of it. Maybe "Movie information" or something like that to differentiate it from the book, or maybe just leave the title off it. 23skidoo 06:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point, I'll get around to taking it off soon - or you can. The infobox was actually the design of this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Movies. I just changed some of the information (Series -> Preceeded/Followed by) to make it fit Bond more. K1Bond007 07:35, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a book version of this info box? You'll note I added preceeded/followed boxes for all the novels. It might work a bit better to have that information in a box (original publisher, date published, etc.) 23skidoo 08:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kinda. They've yet to set a standard, but they have a current discussion going. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. I think for Bond we can use one, but modify it. K1Bond007 16:01, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just have the infobox centered in the section on the book and the picture of the book cover to the right of the book section? This way it's not so big. K1Bond007 17:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Works for me, though I wouldn't bother with the ISBN number as Fleming's books were published before that system went into effect (and I have no idea where to look for such information for recent issues). That said when the box is used for the Gardner and Benson novels (I eventually plan to do articles on all of them), the ISBN number would be more current. One thing that could be included in the box is UK and US hardcover and paperback publication dates, as there is sometimes a wide discrepency (especially with Spy Who Loved Me which didn't see a UK paperback release until 5 years after the US did). 23skidoo 19:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Writer:	Ian Fleming
Publishers:	Ian Fleming Publications
Hardback:	1965 (U.S.) 1964 (U.K.)
Paperback:	1965 (U.S.) 1964 (U.K.)
Preceeded by:	- You Only Live Twice
Followed by:	- Octopussy and The Living Daylights

Something like this? Some info isn't right, I just made it up to have something there for the example. K1Bond007 22:03, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you got it, though the UK edition should be listed first since these are British books. 23skidoo 22:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Split

I see someone put the tag on the article but it's not discussed here. I agree the film section should be split off onto it's own wiki article. That's the standard around here, ie- The Godfather. --TheTruthiness 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the discussion on this is being centralized at Thunderball where there is a consensus to split. K1Bond007 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Article was split on August 1, 2006. K1Bond007 06:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"The Man with the Golden Gun is the thirteenth (counting the short story collection For Your Eyes Only) and final James Bond novel"

This line is confusing. Golden Gun is the thirteenth book, but it's only the twelfth novel. You can't count FYEO here because 1. It's not a novel, and 2. You'd then have to count O&TLD therefore confusing the point even further about this being the final Fleming Bond novel. So either we go back and re-number every novel post FYEO or we change the word novel to book in all articles post FYEO with special mention here that this is the final 'novel'. The latter is probably the better idea. But regardless this sentence cannot remain. K1Bond007 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

GA on Hold

I have placed this article on hold because I feel these issues need to be addressed:

• There needs to be a section titled critical reception or something similar to show what critics felt about the book. This is needed to fulfill the broadness criterion.

• •  Done Corrected one section so as to include all of it. Vikrant Phadkay 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides this the article meets all the other points of the Good Article criteria. T Rex | talk 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Passed as issues were met. Congratulations. T Rex | talk 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is not at GA standard.

• The referencing is not good enough. It's not sufficient to link to the Sony pictures site that it is in any case now a dead link, rather than to the critical sources mentioned in the text.
• The prose is not good enough. To take a line at random: "The novel has been a speculative subject since its publication in 1965." What?
• Meanwhile, the original GA review was clearly cursory at best.

Hence I suggest delisting it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as the previous editor has not concluded the reassessment, I will continue. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 21, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • All citations are to blogs or sources which merely report other sources. The original sources should be cited, eg Sunday Telegraph, Jonathan Cape, Daily Express. Please read WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

OK, I am quick failing this on the basis that it is not referenced to reliable sources. Article de listed. Please bring back to [[WP:GAN when this has been fixed. The prose needs a thorough copy edit to convert into reable English, you may wish to enlist the aid of a good copy-editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be taking this one. Full disclosure, once I've done my review, I'm going to ask another user to look everything over, since this is only my second review, and the first one in a very long time. Also note that I have not read the book and am not a literary critic. If you're detecting a faint lack of confidence, you're spot on. That being said, let's go!

---

Please do not respond to the review in the review, respond to it below the review.
Numbering based on the criteria.

1. Needs copyedit

- I recommend you take this to the GOCE for a copyedit. There are some awkward sentences, some missing commas, and other minor fixes. If you mention that it's in the middle of a GA review, they generally fast track the review.

- Okay, I preformed a copyedit myself, and have a few things that need clarification. Please note that I'm very comma heavy in my writing, and while it's correct, it's not a common style. Feel free to revert back to colons and semicolons if you decide that's better.

- "Bond learns that Scaramanga plans to eliminate him when the weekend is over." does "him" refer to James or Fenix?

- "The first time this happens, is when Bond sits in a car behind Scaramanga and the method of killing is compared to that used by both the KGB and Nazis; according to Black, Bond has to rise above their actions." I feel this is written very awkwardly, but I don't know enough about the scene to reword it.

- "For the first time in the Bond canon, M's full name of "Admiral Sir Miles Messervy KCMG" was finally revealed. Despite being the target of the failed assassination attempt, not only does M not press charges against Bond, he sends him out on further missions." Can you add a sentance showing why this is significant? It seems kinda just 'out there' on its own like that.

- "Similarly, the secretary of the Royal St George's Golf Club, Mark Nicholson, gave his name to the CIA representative at the hotel." - This is worded awkwardly. How did MN 'give' his name? Was there consensus to this, or did Fleming just borrow the name? Was the full name or only the last name taken?

2. Fails ?

- There is not a single source in the "Plot" section. The section needs to be adequately sourced. The rest of the sourcing looks fine to me.

- I'm going to have to ask the person who takes the second look at this one. I didn't see anything in the guideline that said that sources weren't needed. As I said above though, I'm not an expert in this area.

- The above aside, the sources look reliable. Because they're all books, I can't really check for plagiarism or close paraphrasing though, which while I don't suspect to be the case, is supposedly customary during these reviews.

- CorenSearchBot, not surprisingly, found nothing.

3. Question

- Are the two themes the only ones that are written about? I honestly find that rather surprising. If there are other themes, they should be expanded upon.

- It dosen't feel right, but Bond books is what you do, so I'm going to have to trust your judgement on this.

4. Okay

- I was a little concerned about the reviews, but it looks like you struck a balance between good, mediocre, and bad. I'm not sure if I can agree with the statement "although much of the criticism was muted." having read the selection of reviews though. If anything that statement is being too kind to the author.

- Okay.

5. Okay

- Very stable.

6. Okay, but point three could use addressing

- I removed File:James Bond 007 pistol toy.jpg, it's a non-free image and the object is not discussed in the article (therefore it can't be in the artilce per the WP:NFCC.

- I tweaked the Goldeneye image caption, adding the word "estate". This is because the image depicts the house on the estate, and because the first thing anyone things when they hear "Goldeneye" is the movie, so this is confusing without "estate"

- I reworded it again. Do you like that better?

- It's not a requirement, but please consider adding alt texts to the images. It might be a requirement in the future (if Wikipedia gets serious about accessibility), and anyways it's a kindness.

- Thanks.

This is it for the first round, I guess. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

---

1 I'll get a copy edit done, so no issue with that one.

Copy edit now done - see the notes below. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

- Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

- Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

- Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

- There's nothing more I can add to this without going too far from the sources and into the murky waters of WP:OR. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

- Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

2 You're right that there's no sources in the plot section: as per WP:PASI no sources are needed to cover plots in either novels or films as the book (or film) acts as a primary source.

- See WP:PASI, which lists "the plot itself" in the list of "Examples of information available in primary sources include:" Don't worry about that section: it's fine for both novels and films (have a look at some GA or FA novels and films for confirmation on this), although if you're also asking advice from an experienced reviewer, they should also be able to confirm this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

3 As to themes, yes: there are only two. These are thrillers without much in the way of back plots etc and the only two themes identified are those that have been outlined.

-I've been over the source books again and there is not a shred of anything else that I could use in this section, I'm afraid, even tenuously! It's a poor book by comparison with his others and very thin in many ways - plot, characterisations and this also includes themes too: very much the book of a dying and dispirited man. - SchroCat (^ • @)

-I've done a little more work on the themes section. I've not added any further themes (as I can't find any!) but I have strengthened what is there as much as I can, within the confines of the sources. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

4 The reviews are muted in their approach: this is taking into account the full review, not just the quoted lines. It's also as compared to the reviews provided on all the Bond books.

5 -

6 Images

- OK

- I'll accept this, but only just. The house is also called Goldeneye and there is no reason why it should not stand as such, rather than having the "estate" after it. If anything more should be made of the fact, so that those who would be confused because of the film's name learn where it came from. All said, I'll leave it how you've edited it.

That's much better - a good compromise. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

- Alts are now in place

I'll update as and when new actions occur, such as the copy edit. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made additional comments above. They're double indented instead of single indented. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

All good now. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if anything new pops up. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Peer review

1. The grammar, spelling and punctuation is correct. As for its layout I'm not familiar with the MOS for books, but there seems to be no general MOS oversights here. I don't know if the article has been copy-edited since the request above, but it comes across as a well-written article to me.
2. The article is comprehensively sourced, and once a few citation issues have been sorted then it will sail through on this front. To address a point above, the source material (i.e. film/play/book) serves as an adequate primary source for giving an overview of the content, provided there is no interpretation by the editor. The plot as it stands meets the requirements in that regard.
3. I agree with the reviewer that the themes section is a bit light on the ground and generally not up to the standard of the rest of the article. Do the sources used to highlight the themes covered in the last paragraph of the themes section expand on their observations at all? I appreciate that sometimes thematic analysis can be a bit light in mainstream literature, but it would be good if we could move this section up a notch though. That said, the GA criteria only require we include what has been published, and sometimes these assessments can fall into the trap of demanding something that hasn't been published, so if the books don't expand any further on the themes then it clearly satisfies the GA criteria of being "broad in its coverage".
4. The critical reception section is well balanced, the article is stable and the one FU image in the article has a rationale so no worries on that front.

I think it will meet the GA criteria once the issues I have tagged have been addressed. The only section of real concern is the themes section, but if there really is nothing more we can add to the section I'm happy for this article to be awarded GA status. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

---

PR response

1 - Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

2 - these have all now been sorted - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

3 - A fair comment on the themes and as a result I've worked the section about as much as I can, adding a few bits here and there. Adding anything more would take it outside the sources, but I'm hoping that the new additions, even though small in themselves, should make a difference in impact. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

4 - Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall I think all these points have now been covered, both in terms of the GA review and the PR. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Closed as promoted. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ghost(re)written?

Although I haven't seen anything on this point on Wikipedia itself, there have been various claims over the years that the novel was "completed" (i.e., the first draft rewritten) by one or more unseen hands. I realize that this is a pretty radical thing to claim and will not repeat those sources here, but does anyone in Wikipedialand have any reputable sources for or against such claims? I will confess candidly that one of the things that makes me feel tere is at least some ground for this is the obvious "rehashing" of plot elements of other James Bonds novels in the story:

-- the holding of a meeting with representatives of various crime syndicates, one of whom does not agree with the plan of the main villain and as a result is immediately liquidated (Goldfinger)

-- the "Western" affectations, including the construction of an "Old West Railroad", by the main villain (Diamonds are Forever)

I'm sure other such obvious parallels can be found. Partnerfrance (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

1. In future, please post new threads at the bottom of the page, rather than part way through.

2. Try reading the article: the "Background" section covers the myth of the "re-writing".

- SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)