Talk:Thunderball (novel)

Removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status

I would like to state on the record that the removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status would not have occurred if the Wikipedia community had not insisted upon the article being split up. Thanks guys. 23skidoo 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Although this is mostly well-written, this could do with being copy-edited or gone over a little bit more thoroughly. The last paragraph is poorly written and stubbish.

• •  Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: The accuracy of this article has no apparent problems.

3. Broad in coverage?: This article is about the novel, yet there is a large section about the film.

• •  Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?: The last paragraph only lists two positive reviews. I'm sure for such a high-profile book there are more reviews than just these positives and more than just enough for two sentences.

• •  Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

5. Article stability? The stability of the article is not a problem.

6. Images?: You have used three book covers under the fair use rationale; however, they are not there for any real purpose. The second is for illustration in the plot summary. The last is in a section about a contraversial text on the front cover without displaying that text.

• •  Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Hydrostatics 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

Most of the Controversy section is uncited, and needs restructuring. Alientraveller 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

These same problems still exist. This is a novel - think of including sections such as: "Themes", "Writing style", "Reception", etc. You might look at the some of the novels that have become FAs for guidance such as Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Lord of the Rings, and The Well of Loneliness. Also, there is quite a bit of excellent literary criticism on Fleming and film criticism on the Bond films. You need to do some more research - that will provide you with the sources for the article and help you flesh out the discussion of the novel. Awadewit | talk 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GA/R result

Since the review lasted quite awhile, I figured I might as well mention it here, the articles status was unchanged. Jayron seems to of offered some helpful suggestions though, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 29. Homestarmy 03:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rights

What happened to the film rights when McClory died? Emperor001 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thunderball (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again! I've volunteered to review this article for GAC, so I'll be posting comments/suggestions sometime in the next couple days. From first glance things look pretty good, so hopefully we'll have another Good Article on our hands in new time. I'll be back soon. María (yllosubmarine) 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there - great to have you back again and I hope this will be another smooth review! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being so patient, I was hoping to get to this sooner! Anyway, this is another interesting article; I'm especially pleased to see that it was once an FA, back when the book/film were squished together in the same space -- great job developing both articles separately! As before, for the most part my comments revolve around the prose. Here is how it stands against the criteria:

1. Well-written: For the most part; see issues below.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
3. Broad in its coverage: Yes.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Lead

• Thunderball is the ninth book in Ian Fleming's James Bond series, first published in the UK by Jonathan Cape on 27 March 1961, where the initial print run of 50,938 copies quickly sold out. The story—the eighth full length James Bond novel by Fleming—is technically the first novelisation of a James Bond screenplay. -- The first sentence is somewhat long, and I'm not sure (as a Bond novice) how the ninth book/eighth full length novel relates to each other. How about rewording as: "...the ninth book in Ian Fleming's James Bond series, and the eighth full length James Bond novel. It was first published in the UK by Jonathan Cape on 27 March 1961, where the initial print run of 50,938 copies quickly sold out. Technically the first novelization of a James Bond screenplay, it was born from..."
• The "born from" suggested above is because of the redundancy of "was a result of"... "was the result of" in the first paragraph, but any other rewording will work.

• Both done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot

• At the clinic Bond encounters Count Lippe, a member of the Red Lightning Tong criminal organisation from Macau. When Bond learns this... -- Does "this" refer to Lippe being a member of the Red Lightning Tong? If so, best reword so it's less ambiguous.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Characters and themes

• Felix Leiter had his largest role to date in a Bond story and much of his humour came though... -- The previous sentence is in present tense, while this is in past tense. Consistency is needed.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Background

• The name of the health farm, Shrublands, was taken by Fleming from that of a house owned by the parents of his wife's friend... I think the "by Fleming" is rather understood here, since he's the one that wrote the book?

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I hadn't heard of Buster Crabb before, so that was very interesting. I would suggest adding that Crabb was a frogman, since I initially read it as he was just a regular Joe hired by the M16. "undertaken on 19 April 1956 by frogman "Buster" Crabb"?

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• However, when the film was released in July 1959, it was poorly received by the critics and did not do well at the box office[23] and Fleming became disenchanted with McClory's ability as a result. -- This reads somewhat clumsily. "it was poor received, and as a result Fleming became disenchanted..."?

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• In November 1959 Fleming left to travel round the world on behalf of The Sunday Times... -- "round"? Either make it "around", or nix it all together.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes? Either is fine, but it needs to be made consistent throughout the article.

• Done; the only spaced emdash remaining is the use with dates, which I think is correct(?) - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• during which time Fleming was unwell—having heart attacks during the case itself -- There has to be a better way to word this; Fleming's article states he had a heart attack, but this seems to imply he had more than one at this time? "he suffered a heart attack/heart attacks during the case"?

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Adaptations

• The film was produced by as the third Eon Productions film... -- "by as"? Not sure what is meant here.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

• There are a few sources missing publisher locations, but otherwise everything looks good.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's about it. Very nice work! I found the plot a lot easier to follow than Dr. No, and the "Release and reception" section is particularly well done. I did some minor copy-editing throughout for punctuation and minor redundancies, so be sure to check and make sure I didn't misconstrue something. Once the above comments/suggestions have been resolved, I'll be happy to promote this to GA. On hold for now. María (yllosubmarine) 14:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• All covered, I think, but please let me know if there is something else you want me to look at, or if I've missed something. Cheers again - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Looks good to me! Congrats on another GA. :) María (yllosubmarine) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

End of Controversy

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/movies_battle_for_bond_is_over.php3?t=&s=&id=03598

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the controversy over rights is finally over? Emperor001 (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Edition War September 30, 2004

User @SchroCat today launched himself with myself on a edition war, following corrections an new information added by myself earlier today. SchroCat removed them for motive "ALL the new additions are based on an unreliable source. Sources cannot be from personal or fan-driven websites".

The source he talked about is, I guess, an e-book called "Scripting 007: Behind the writing of the James Bond movies" written by an author called Clement Feutry and published here: https://www.commander007.net/2024/scripting-007-free-book/

SchroCat deemed it "Unreliable" while:

- There is inside 331 explicits precises sources/references, spread/listed on 7 pages (pages 303 to 309).

- That theses sources included actual correspondances, actual court papers, actual movie script/treatment, as well as references ouvrages (some even cited as sources in this same Wikipedia page).

Meanwhile, our previous version of the Wikipedia page before my editions were base on ouvrages like Raymond Benson The bedside compagnion, which basically is:

- Based on interview mades by Benson of the different protagonist of Thunderball evoking 20 years old souvenir (which may be or not acurate due to time factor and that people can lie).

- Isn't based on any document at all (no correspondance of the time, no court paper, no script).

- Which is (as all Bond book, or any book, on any subject) "fan-driven". (But I will pass on that since being fan driven doesn't automaticaly mean innacurate, and that all respected author were a one point basically nobody, just simples fans, before they started their first publications).

By reverting all modification made by me, Shrocat restaured wrong informations contained in the original page, such as this sentence: "formed the partnership Xanadu Productions, named after Bryce's Bahamian home, but which was never actually formed into a company". This is untrue, and easly can be proven:

- The sentence in itself: they "formed the partnership Xanadu Productions" but was "never actually formed into a company": contradiction.

- If Xanadu Productions was never formed, how to explains the Wikipedia page of The Boy and the Bridge, which was produced by this compagny, list the compagny?

- How explain the name "Xanadu Productions" in the film title (ironicaly reproduced in the Scripting 007 book, page 163), or in the film stills for exemple: https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/385121717046

The true is that Xanadu Productions exist and was formed. The compagny that was never formed is Xanadu-Bahamas Limited: a different partenership/society (altrough having a similar name). It was a compagny destined to create the film studio (film studio mentionned in my modification which was reverted). This detail is clreay explained in Scripting 007 book at page 166, or even in Robert Sellers book (page 21, first edition).

So as this exemple show: things was corrected by me, SchroCat deemed my modifications as "unreliable", "ALL" (actually written in caps) of them, reverted it to the old erroned text (which is the one that is actually unreliable since untrue)... Moneyofpropre (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As I put in the edit summary, you need to read WP:UNRELIABLE to understand about unreliable sources. Fansites like commander007.net are a no-no. And that's before we get to the mangled English that made some parts of the changes unreadable. Even if it was rewritten, the information from commander007.net still can't be used, because it's not reliable.

The article is scheduled to be rewritten in the next few months anyway to bring it up to the FA level that most of the other Bond novels are at. Any minor inaccuracies will be dealt with at that point but—and this is the key point—it will be done only using reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

First, the content of this page is in part based on "fansites", see reference n°39 or 42. Why some would be deemed okay, while other abritrary don't? But lets say that all thses gonna be removed in the next rewrites, isn't it?

Second, you still don't answer what in what a book that sources precises tracables documents is less realiable than an other than sources from interview only?

Third: shouldn't the debate "is the informations are true or accurate at all, and can we prove it" rather than is the publisher is an fan of James Bond?

Five: Raymond Benson, Andrew Lycett, Robert Sellers and all the author listed in the reference section aren't fan of Bond too? Should we consider them unreliable and ban their info because they are fan of Bond as well as author?

Six: you have right about the English. But it could maybe be corrected rather than inhalated?

Seven: good you intent to deal with inaccuracies. But how one can do that by only accepting infos that are good only in appearance (because published by a big name of the edition rather than a self-edited). As we see by my previous exemples (and I can give others), having a good "packaging" doesn't mean you are more accurate than someone smaller (who, it is the point, have prime sources support his statements). I happen to see more inacucracies in big news site articles about Bond than in Bond's fans website (written by people who know the subject).

Beside I don't want to disrespect Benson, he is just an exemple took, his book his fantastic, not his fault if he didn't have access to the same prime material some authors had, he did the best he could with what he had. Still their is danger to not question what is wrote inside because he have more credits behind than another guy or another. Moneyofpropre (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but with the best will in the world I cannot understand much of this. For the bits that are understandable, no, the references from fan sites should not be there and they will certainly be removed as part of the rewrite. No fan sites will be part of the rewrite, and that includes commanderbond.net. We do not allow unreliable sources in articles - and commanderbond.net is unreliable. - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Edition War September 30, 2004" So you two have been discussing this for 20 years? Well then, Happy 20th Anniversary!SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

🤣 SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)