Talk:Live and Let Die (film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Intro: Is he explicitly described as "MI6 agent" in the film? I think better to use the generic "secret agent".
   • Infobox: "Live And Let Die" should be consistently rendered as "Live and Let Die" throughout.
   • Plot: Is Samedi really laughing "mysteriously" at the end? I would call it "menacingly" myself but, rather than put our own interpretation on it, how about just "Samedi is seen perched on the front of the speeding train in which Bond and Solitaire are travelling, laughing in his voodoo outfit" or something like that?
   • Production: Suggest you put "After the release of Diamonds are Forever" before or after "Live and Let Die was chosen as the next Ian Fleming novel to be adapted" for context. Also not sure about the wording "at the period, which had the Black Panthers and other racial movements". Suggest "as the Black Panthers and other racial movements were active at this time".
   • Filming: Not sure why "encouraged" should be linked to Exile. I'd just say "encouraged" and forget the link.
   • General: Citations should appear immediately after punctiation, without a space in between.
   • Standard for dates is now to not link day/month and year.

   • All dealt with per below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • What makes Exotic Locations a reliable source?
   • Music: Can you cite the "irony" re. Beatles and Goldfinger? I agree with you but without a citation from someone else's observation it looks like original research.

   • All dealt with per below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

A good effort all round. I've taken the liberty of making a few style edits that are quicker to do than talk about. The following are some other suggestions, but will not stop me passing as GA if you don't action:

• Intro: I think "Although the producers wanted Sean Connery" works better than "Even though".
• Cast: Re, Rosie, I guess "traitorous" is a word but I think "treacherous" is better...
• Production: Prefer the more straightforward "name the film's villain" to "baptize".

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Query/Responses

I'm going through your issues now, but with number 1 for "rsonably well writeen". For every other Bond film article, it has Mi6, it is generally assumed through continuity of the films that he is a Mi6 agent. Biograpies (even James Bond article here) have that, I don't see the need to change it to a more generic statement, I'll continue this a bit later.  The Windler talk  10:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done the rest - comments:

• Changed all instances of "Live And Let Die" to "Live and Let Die"
• Changed Samedi sentence in Plot.
• Made better context for when Live and Let Die was to be adapted.

• Can we change "While in the filming" to "During filming"? Also pls note the other point under Production: Also not sure about the wording "at the period, which had the Black Panthers and other racial movements". Suggest "as the Black Panthers and other racial movements were active at this time". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Removed exile link
• Fixed citations spacing issues
• I'm not sure if there are any left of dates. But the rest links are not to years, but YEAR in film or somethng like that.
• Exotic Locations source - it dosen't really give info on what it is produced etc. so I replaced it with another source.
• I couldn't find a source on the "irony" bit. So I removed it because really its trivia.
• Finally, I did the first and third of your extra requests, but not the second. "traitorous" is a word, and "treacherous" has a second meaning (like treacherous waters which implies dangerous), so I left it as it is.

Thanks for the review.  The Windler talk  10:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure, I agree that most references describe him as MI6 and, given the intro is using it in a general fashion rather than specifically about this film, I'll live with that. If you can action the Production points above, we're done and dusted... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just done them Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Highfields. I note that Windler made a case for keeping "treacherous" as "traitorous", which I accepted, so I'll leave you two to agree that one as it wasn't a show-stopper for me (just don't get into an edit war about it - we want to keep this satisfying Criterion 5 above...!). All issues raised have been dealt with now so this has passed - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not something I really care about, grammer. I'm a terrible speller etc... If its either way, I don't really care. Not worthy of getting into an edit war over. Thanks for the review.  The Windler talk  20:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)