Talk:Portrayal of James Bond in film/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'll go through and make straightforward copyedits (please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning) and jot queries below.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

link Bentley.

Now linked - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In para 2 of Fleming's literary characterisation it'd be good to streamline mention of smoking and drinking habits into one mention each rather than repeat them in consecutive sentences.

I've merged into one simply by swapping the full stop for a colon: does this read OK? I played around with dropping the second sentence into the first in various places, but it messed up with the citations too much. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The "penchant" edit looks good. - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the negative press prior to the release of Casino Royale, upon its release Craig was widely praised by critics and former Bonds - try to remove one "release"....

Re-worked the sentence—only one "release" in there now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The prose is pretty good and engaging to read..and I can see it is well referenced. I can see this at FAC before too long. I'm musing on the overall structure in that it is somewhat listy - you have the lead and then the segments on each actor. Is there any material on overall viewpoints on overall best-rated actor to play bond, other popular discussions on actors most proposed by fans to play bond. The material on bond and smoking is interesting...so some discussion of evolution of his attributes - problem is this might be problematic cutting across the segments as laid out currently. I am throwing up some ideas here and am not familiar with the scholarly study of bond in film...so you might have some other ideas....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There was some discussion on that when we put the article together (but I'm struggling to find ther thread at the moment). Initially I had wanted to mirror the structure of James Bond (literary character), so this article was initially called James Bond (film character) and it started out going that way. However, it soon became apparent that there just wasn't suffcient material around to cover that angle, so it had to be broken down chronologically instead. In terms of the "best" Bond etc, there are probably more forum threads discussing people's personal choices for theatr mantle than there are articles on Wiki! They are all from the fan sites, so we've avoided them like the plague and kept only to the reliable sources, all of which keep the subjective part out of the equation, except to note that Connery is still considered to be the genesis of the character by which all others are measured. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if there is nothing else that is missing from reliable sources then so be it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking on the task of reviewing this: it's a long article and I hope it's not been too onerous! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is an enjoyable read! nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: (deft work with images)

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, nice read. I spot-checked a couple sources - looked ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fantastic news: thanks very much indeed for this—it is very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)