Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfinger (novel)/archive1

Goldfinger (novel)

After a fairly long hiatus away from 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. A visit to FAC is the post-PR aim. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is just a place-marker: I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. It is, I grieve to say, more than fifty years since I read Goldfinger, but I think I'll enjoy renewing acquaintance. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Here are my quibbles, after an enjoyable perusal:

• Lead
  • "by MI6 operative James Bond" – clunky false title
  • "whilst also bringing" – I'm never sure what "whilst" has got that "while" hasn't, though Fowler, rather to my surprise, doesn't object to it.
    • An "S" and a "T"? - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "named after British architect Ernő Goldfinger" – another false title
  • "Upon learning" – as with "while/whilst" I go for the shorter version, but again, Fowler is not prescriptive on the point. (Where is the old buzzard when you need him?) There are two more "upons" in the lead, too.
  • "Most recently, Goldfinger was adapted for BBC Radio with Toby Stephens as Bond and Sir Ian McKellen as Goldfinger" – WP:DATED? Perhaps the year instead of "most recently"? And I think it kinder to your readers' eyes to pipe the Sir – Sir Ian McKellen – avoiding the jolting change of gear in "Sir Ian McKellen", though I know this is not a unanimously held view. The Chocolate Teapot The Manual of Style offers no help on this, needless to say.
• Plot inspirations
  • "an SOE agent and friend of his wife's" – whose wife?
  • "who Fleming had met in 1949" – "whom", if you please.
• Characters
  • "Benson agrees that Bond is shown as a bigot in the passage quoted, and observes that this is the only point in all the works in which Fleming disparages a whole race." – I realise you are quoting Benson's view, but Fleming is not disparaging anybody: Bond is. Kingsley Amis created a character who disparaged Mozart, and Amis had to defend himself against the awful charge that he himself disparaged Mozart – which he most certainly didn't.
  • "in contrast to a number of Fleming's other…" – there are those who get hot under the collar about "a number of" rather than "some”, though I can't say it bothers me.
  • "Panek considers this is a traditional sign of gauche individual" – is there an indefinite article missing here?
  • "these beliefs of Goldfinger's are condemned by Fleming for being outside normal appetites." – "beliefs" seems an odd word in this context.
  • "Elizabeth Ladenson … thought the character of Pussy Galore" – sudden switch to past tense verb here.
• Style
  • "the most implausible to Fleming's plots" – does he really say "to", and not "of"?
  • "the denouement to the novel" – another "to" where I would expect "of"
  • "a fast pace and high action" – what is "high action"?
• Themes
  • "gambling is a theme, with not only golf as part of the novel" – not obvious how golf is "gambling"
  • "Fleming's reaction to the lack of US support over the Suez Crisis in 1956" – quite right too! That disgusting creature Dulles!
• Publication history
  • "Goldfinger was published … by publishers Jonathan Cape" – this creaking false title can be dispensed with by simply dropping the word "publishers". Nobody will suppose that Cape was a grocer or gentleman's outfitter. (According to Rupert Hart-Davis he was "a tight-fisted old bastard", but that is neither here nor there.)
  • "Since its initial publication the book … has never been out of print." – Another hostage to WP:DATED?
• Critical reception
  • "Even when leaving reality behind, however, Richardson considers that Fleming…" – this reads as though it is Richardson rather than Fleming who is leaving reality behind.
  • "Writing in The Manchester Guardian, Roy Perrott …" – You might lose "Writing": what else would he have been doing in The Manchester Guardian? (Unless running a fish and chip shop, perhaps and putting a large haddock and six pennorth of chips in it. Those were the days!)
  • "whilst the Manchester Evening News" – two points here: first there is a "whilst" used to mean "and". See Fowler: "There is no point in saying while when you mean and, and it is much better not to use it for although either. If you are too free with while you are sure sooner or later to land yourself in the absurdity of seeming to say that two events occurred simultaneously which could not possibly have done so." Secondly, the newspaper is deprived of a capital letter in its definite article, whereas its rivals are not.
  • "Meanwhile, the critic for the New York Herald Tribune" – I don't think the "meanwhile" adds anything of value. Another inconsistent capitalisation of a paper’s definite article. Might be worth checking the whole article for consistency on this point.
• Adaptations
  • "Following its successful radio version of Dr. No" – successful according to whom?
  • "villain Gustav Graves in Die Another Day" – another awkward false title
  • "Stephens' Die Another Day co-star" – "Stephens's"?
• Notes
  • Note d: Dr No has suddenly been deprived of his full stop (twice).

That's all from me. A most satisfying article which seems to me clearly of FA standard. I am about to absent myself on a Wiki-break, as you know, while I do some pressingly overdue work on a different endeavour, but if you email me I'll gladly make an exception and look in at the FAC. – Tim riley talk 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Tim, many, many thanks for your comments, all duly taken on board, I think. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

Background and writing history

• "By January 1958 the author Ian Fleming had published five novels: Casino Royale in 1953, Live and Let Die in 1954, Moonraker in 1955, Diamonds Are Forever in 1956 and From Russia, with Love in 1957." -- the "in 19.." is very repetitive. I would suggest leaving Casino Royale as it is and putting the other years in parenthesis.
  • I've gone down a slightly different route: "had published five novels in the preceeding five years" with dates for the first and last. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• "Although Fleming did not date the event within his novels, John Griswold and Henry Chancellor—both of whom wrote books for Ian Fleming Publications—have identified different timelines..." - This would work just as well without "have" identified. Just confirm, was this at the time or a few years after, or are we talking many years after?
  • Both a long time after. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Development

• "In June 1957 Fleming had played in the Bowmaker Pro-Am golf tournament..." - is "had" redundant here?

Style

• "Benson and Fleming's biographer, Matthew Parker, considers Goldfinger is the "densest" of the Bond novels" → "Benson and Fleming's biographer, Matthew Parker, considers Goldfinger to be the "densest" of the Bond novels"?
• "...writes that the plot is impractical and that "sometimes there's no logic in the sequence of events" and the writer and academic Kingsley Amis—who also later wrote a Bond novel—writes that the novel was "more implausible than most. -- writes/writer/wrote/writes. Much too repetitive.

Publication history

• "As with his previous four novels, Fleming came up with the concept of the front cover design" -- including "concept of" here sounds like he's invented the idea of having a front cover design, and not the design itself (which I think is what you mean). Leaving out "concept of" would clarify that he designed the front cover of Goldfinger, the novel.

All done, adopt or disregard at your leisure. One of my favourite Bond books has been done justice by this excellent article. Cassianto^Talk 15:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Cass, many thanks as always: your comments all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)