Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goldfinger (novel)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2019 [1].

Goldfinger (novel) edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a fairly long hiatus away from FAC for the Bond books, we're back with a biggie. Not necessarily the best of the series, but certainly one where the writer's imagination was allowed to run a bit wild. Goldfinger is the seventh in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories. This article has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous Bond novel re-writes, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. Any further constructive comments would be most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'll have another read through tonight, but I see nothing to warrant anything other than my support, here. CassiantoTalk 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Solid stuff, love the movie and saw this was nominated so giving it a read through. Here's my suggestions, feel free to comment if you don't think they should be fixed, I'm no professor of English or anything:

  • "and the round of golf played with Goldfinger was based on a tournament in 1957 at the Berkshire Golf Club in which Fleming partnered Peter Thomson, the winner of The Open Championship." ---> ".... based on a 1957 tournament at the Berkshire Golf Club in which Fleming partnered with The Open Championship winner Peter Thomson" to shorten the sentence a tad and remove a comma
  • The phrase "The Open Championship winner Peter Thomson" is a false title, so I've retained that part, but I've moved the year ealier in the sentence, per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".. well received by the critics and was favourably compared to the works of Sapper and John Buchan." --- Explain briefly who sapper and john buchan are here cause - for me atleast - just saying their names doesn't tell me if they're authors who publish espionage related works or not.
  • In Background and writing you mention that it was to be called The Richest Man in the World; however, if I am reading it correctly you don't mention when it was officially renamed to Goldfinger and why -- if you were able to find that.
  • There's no information in the sources on that. Fleming changed a few of the titles, but there aren't any reasons given for any of them, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda seems like the part where you explain Fleming's love for gold in background and writing could go under plot inspirations too, but your call here on this.
  • I think I'd prefer it where it is: he had a long-standing love of gold, which is different to being inspired by an event or piece of news. (it's a slim difference, but I hope you get where I'm coming from). - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest adding something regarding Goldfinger's character to the lead as there was lots of coverage and analysis of him in the Development - Characters section
  • I've added a line about the character with some of the background information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last is merely personal preference, but I would recommend to archive all the links if possible just to better preserve your work

Otherwise very nice. Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Disc Wheel, I've covered all your points above, but will get round to the archiving shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Goldfinger-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Rolls-Royce_Silver_Ghost.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Barnes: that ISBN seems to match a different edition
  • What makes Griswold a high-quality reliable source?
  • Griswold's work is classed as an approved reference book by Ian Fleming Publications, the family company of Ian Fleming and holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works. The work has been accepted by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion as a serious source and has been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009. – SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hemley link is dead
  • Be consistent in where you include retrieval dates
  • Several of the entries under Websites should be using |publisher= rather than |website=.

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Nikkimaria - all should now be sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian edit

Recusing from coord duties to review -- big fan of the Fleming Bond books and glad to see Gav's back in harness...

  • As long as I haven't damaged anything with my copyedit I don't really have probs with the prose. The parts detailing critics' observations do suffer a bit from the usual synonyms for "said", which I've tried to vary further, but it's always a challenge to make the language fresh.
  • Nothing really springs to mind as having been left out; about the only thing I can think of right now might be argued as belonging more in the film's article than here, but I fully agree with Benson (p. 179) that this is one of the few Bond books whose plot was actually improved in places by the film, e.g. having Bond discover Jill dead, taking Bond prisoner rather than employing him, irradiating rather than stealing the gold, etc -- if you did want to expand a bit on that aspect under Adaptations then it might buttress the earlier claims in the article re. the novel's more fanciful elements.
  • MOS-wise, there are some duplinks you could lose -- let me know if you need the script that highlights them.
  • Taking Nikki's image/source reviews as read.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers Ian. Your tweaks were all great, thanks - I have no complaints about them. I've added a slice about the film plot and removed the duplicate links. Thanks for taking a look over. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Gav, that's great. I mainly held back on support to give others a chance to comment and then see how much the article changed as a result, and I see no probs with those changes so happy to pile on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers Ian – much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz edit

Hi SchroCat, great read! Here are some suggestions for possible clarification for parts that tripped me up and a couple of typos.

  • Bond as Saint George figure - 'a' Saint George figure?
  • Goldfinger is obsessed by gold - the last subject was the real person Goldfinger. Maybe reword to 'the character Goldfinger is obsessed by gold', or add Auric
  • Peter Thomson, the winner of The Open Championship - "the winner of" sounds like there was only one championship, 'multiple winner' or 'a winner' or 'an Open Championship winner'?
  • I think this may be an Engvar thing: this reads correctly to my British eye as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • as a comic strip in The Daily Express, before - does that paper have a "The" in its name or should be 'the'
  • businessman whom Bond briefly met and - 'had' briefly met?
  • does Canasta take a cap C? (at Themes section is canasta) Can't see where name comes from but bridge, poker, rummy, etc aren't capped.
  • to spy on DuPont's cards. - space Du Pont
  • paying back DuPont's lost money - as above
  • smuggling gold out of the country - which country? (it's not noted yet that Goldfinger operates in UK.)
  • meet and play round of golf with - 'a' round?
  • factotum - wlink?
  • adapted with armour plating and armour-plated glass - are 'armour-plated glass' Fleming's words? just 'plated'?
  • and fits them to the Mecca Charter Airline, in which he holds a large stake - fits seats into an aircraft of that company or does Airline represent only one plane?
  • and it turns out that Leiter has - '"turns out" eventuates, becomes apparent, is revealed
  • will protect her, but she is killed by Oddjob - Pussy or Tilly?
  • managed to hijack a BOAC jetliner -'the' jetliner, ie the one Bond is on? Did Bond knowingly catch a flight but he was drugged later? Did Goldfinger hijack the plane before it took off or in the air?
  • did not date the event within his novels - events?
  • The architect Ernő Goldfinger threatened to sue Fleming ... Fleming threatened to add an erratum slip to the book changing the name from Goldfinger to Goldprick - when did Ernő find out, before or after the book was printed/distributed? Was Fleming going to simply put Goldprick on the erratum slip - or was he going to change Auric's name to Goldprick throughout the book and then explain on the slip how that name came about?
  • Jonathan Cape, paid Golfinger's legal costs - missing 'd' in Golfinger, plus add Ernő for clarification (this slightly confusing when 3 separate uses of same name ie Goldfinger novel, the character and the architect)
  • ran the double cross system - hyphen double-cross
  • Goldfinger's own residence at 2 Willow Road. - add 'in Hampsted'?
  • "Fleming's golf partner, John Blackwell" and "Fleming's golfing friend John Blackwell" - repetition
  • Englehard had established a company - typo Engel
  • had established a company, the Precious Metals Development Company - any way to avoid 2x company? 'established a firm' or maybe 'established a company, the Precious Metals Development, which...
  • Black considers that Bond - introduce Black here?
  • Synott highlights the sentence - typo double N
  • Burgess, in his 1984 work Ninety-nine Novels - italics
  • examination of 20th century British spy novels - hyphen? ie 20th-century
  • Elizabeth Ladenson, the general editor - Elisabeth with an 's' (and at Sources)
  • Janet Woollacott and Tony Bennett consider that many of the female characters in the Bond series depart from Fleming's accepted cultural norms; both Pussy Galore and Tilly Masterson conform to this rule - are they writing about the novel or film ie masterton/son
  • and" Enemy action" - move quote mark after and
  • biographer, Matthew Parker - wlink
  • Benson and Fleming's biographer, Matthew Parker, - ambiguous? consider moving comma ie 'Benson, and Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker,
  • Benson identifies a theme of Bond acting - this para has 2 x "St." and 2 x "St"
  • to open the vault[59] "Bond sighed wearily. - needs punc after vault?
  • Maurice Richardson thought that - wlink
  • "Guilt-edged Bond",[10] The critic for - full stop after Bond (or decap The)
  • McKellen - uses Sir in lede and caption but not in Adaptations, intentional?
  • quote box "I propose to wring the truth out of you" - full stop?
  • The pair highlight irradiation the gold in Fort Knox - irradiation 'of' or 'irradiating'

That's me for now. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • JennyOz, a fantastic list to work to: thank you so much for all your comments here. I've demurred on one only (up above), but the rest are all now covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple more "The" Daily Express to address
  • Book cover alt "a skull with coins for eyes" - maybe 'gold' coins? (just to tie into theme)

Two more minor suggestions... I'm very happy to support promotion. JennyOz (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks JennyOz, both final suggestions addressed, and thank you again for all your comments and support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moise edit

Hi Gavin, glad to see you back with another Bond novel article. I've read through once (and made some minor edits) and am on my second read-through. I'll comment below over the next few days as I make it through the second read-through and notice things. First comment:

  • The lead says "Fleming had based the actual character on the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr." but in the main text it sounds less certain: "According to the historian Henry Chancellor the likely model for Auric Goldfinger was the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr.,[10] whom Fleming had met in 1949." Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Moise, Thanks for dropping by - always good to hear from you. I've tweaked that one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) Consider changing Saint George to St George (two instances) for consistency with the quotations.
  • "Goldfinger does not consume cigarettes or alcohol—unlike many people of the time—but he does pay prostitutes; these tastes of Goldfinger's are condemned by Fleming for being outside normal appetites." I wasn't sure whether "these tastes" in the plural is correct as it seems to just be talking about paying for prostitutes, just one thing. I'm not actually sure how I would reword this, though. If you want to leave it as is, I won't object too strongly, but it feels just possibly a little bit off.
  • The tastes are plural - not drinking or smoking was a sign of a a flawed character, as far as Fleming was concerned. I'll have a think about how to tweak this so it reads a bit better and comes across more clearly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Moisejp (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Moisejp, I'm much obliged. The first point done; I'll have a think about how to re-word the second and see if I can come up with anything more clear. How does this look for the second? OK, or still need a a bit of a tweak? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good, Gavin. It took me a bit to understand that Fleming was also condemning the "cleaner" behaviour of not smoking or drinking, but now I got it. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt edit

Support Very nice. All very minor things:

  • "Auric Goldfinger is obsessed by gold and—to Bond's eye—a gauche individual with unusual appetites; Fleming had probably based the character on the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr." I'm not sure you need the "had".
  • "He is subsequently invited back to Goldfinger's mansion near Reculver" Does this mean a second visit?
  • Issued by MI6 with an Aston Martin DB Mark III, Bond trails Goldfinger as he takes his vintage Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost (adapted with armour plating and bulletproof glass), driven by Oddjob, via air ferry to Switzerland." It has been some years since I read the novel, but this makes it sound, but for the make of the vehicle, that Bond may have been chasing the air ferry with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
  • I've added an image of the car, and added a link to air ferry, as well as tweaking it slightly to make it clear. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • stealing the United States Bullion Depository's gold from Fort Knox" I might say "stealing the gold from the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox" or some such.
  • "at the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths—one of the livery companies of the City of London" So they are, but I might mention their responsibility for ascertaining the purity of gold, hallmarking.
  • "Ernő Goldfinger" You mention the dispute and settlement with him twice.
  • Wehwalt, I can't see this twice: there's one in the Background section (para beginning "Fleming had originally conceived the card game"), but I can't see the other one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for all of these. Just a query on the last point, which I can't spot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

"Do you expect me to talk, SchroCat?!"
Noting as well how Rosenberg and Stewart comment that, Oddjob was, in Bond's more laconic moments, "that Korean ape".
Hope all's well! 15:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

He was a charmer, was Bond (or Fleming, depending on your viewpoint)! Synnott covers the whole racist angle rather nicely, but all the Bond stories—much like those of Sapper, Agatha Christie and a host of other popular authors of the time—reflect the attitudes thaat were fashionable then and abhorrent now. - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prolly the wrong moment to mention Biggles then, I guess ... DBaK (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or Sax Rohmer's creation Fu Manchu ... or H. Rider Haggard's Allan Quatermain series. Ah, the Victorian empire literature and it's casual racism. I suspect some members of the goverment still read some of those works to get ideas for their policies. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DBak edit

Lovely article. I have a very minor comment/quibble whose summary dismissal would not lose me such a lot of sleep. We call Bond's employer "MI6" twice in the lead and once further down, in the Plot section. We call it the "Secret Service" once at the start of the Plot. (For completeness, I should maybe add that we don't call it SIS, either initialized or spelt out, at all, though this is its realest real name. But this doesn't really matter.) This grated with me very slightly as, in the world of the book, the SIS is never called MI6 (I think I am right in claiming this!) nor indeed SIS. It only calls the thing that M directs the "Secret Service". I do totally get it that MI6 is a common name for this lovely organization – indeed SIS themselves cheerfully acknowledge this on their website. So yes I think it's fine to make the link, to agree that Bond works for the Secret Service per Fleming, = SIS, = MI6 per current usage. That's not my problem – it is just that I would rather see it first said that Bond works for the Secret Service, so that it is not too instantly as if we are seeing it through the light of what we now know and say.

Finally, sorry if this whole thing is a stupid point and/or has been discussed to death elsewhere. I found it mentioned in 2012 in an old FAC but it wasn't discussed then and indeed the person making the point was, with the greatest respect, also missing the point. But I too may have missed something, so I will shush now. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a stupid point, but it is a (mildly) problematic one to deal with, and I don't think it's ever been satisfatorily addressed without making the aritcles a complete mess in outlining the point. The term "The Secret Service" tends nowadays to mean this bunch, and it's not a term we use in the UK for SIS, MI6 or, en masse, the security services (to include MI5 - correctly named The Security Service, to add confusion). I've tweaked the link in the lead to show Secret Service (which pipes back to MI6), and this should suffice (hopefully). I'm always conscious to avoid WP:INUNIVERSE-type writing, but this shouldn't be a problem Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is great, thank you. I think your current solution is excellent, and I absolutely take the point about in-universe language. It's just that it's rather boiled into my bones from repeated reading of the half-title page blurb (in the old Pan paperbacks at least) saying The licence to kill for the Secret Service, the double-0 prefix, was a great honour and so on and so forth. So actually I love what you have done with it right now. If, though, it is going to be a problem that people more identify this name with the US Secret Service, one minor and easy tweak might be to just change the Secret Service operative James Bond into the British Secret Service operative James Bond – note that I have kept the British outside the link, which I think helps with clarity as it is never called that in the book – I think! And it is OK, perhaps, to add this as the first para doesn't specify where we are exactly other than that it is a UK publication so maybe this detail is acceptable if it might help generally. But I am not spoiling for a big fight over this, and thank you for the nice response. DBaK (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem: now added. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks! DBaK (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Another tiny one edit

Erkkk, sorry, I am back again. In Development > Plot inspirations we have this: Fleming also disliked Goldfinger, for destroying Victorian buildings and replacing them with the architect's modernist designs, particularly a terrace at Goldfinger's own residence at 2 Willow Road, Hampstead. It made me read it twice, because we've just mentioned Ernő Goldfinger and then we say he'd replaced Victorian buildings with The Architect's modernist designs ... what, which architect is this now?? Oh, duh, I get it now ... but it does clunk slightly for me – what would be worse about just saying "his" modernist designs? I'm not sure I can see the problem that we are trying to avoid here, but please feel free to enlighten me. I promise I really am shutting up now ... DBaK (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked slightly to avoid confusion. I think I was trying to avoid ambiguity for "his" designs to be thought of as Fleming's, but that seems not to be the case. Many thanks for these two comments: I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, nails it precisely. Thank you DBaK (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ermmmm edit

I have another stupidly minor worry to mention, but it's just been promoted (well done!!) So should I continue here, or go back to the everyday vanilla Talk page, or just shush, or edit it myself (danger Will Robinson! danger!) or what? Please advise. DBaK (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2019 (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/Goldfinger_(novel)/archive1&oldid=922484814"