Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Fleming/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 12:44, 26 July 2012 [1].

Ian Fleming

Ian Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 22:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because as a GA class article that has been through recent peer review and copy edit processes, I feel that the article is comprehensive enough and rounded enough to be considered for featured article status. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN3: page?
  • be consistent in when you provide locations for newspapers
  • Pearson 1966 or 1967?
  • Missing bibliographic info for Fleming 1963
  • No citations to Feeney Callan
  • Bennett shows The James Bond Phenomenon being published in Manchester, while Lindner says London - which is correct?
  • Given that Xlibris is a self-publishing company, what makes Caplen a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done (I think), but please let me know if I've missed any. Caplen is a borderline case, but I've given a different source for this direct quote from Fleming, as there are a number of others that also carry it. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
Lead section

*"and his father was Member of Parliament for Henley from 1910 until his death" . Missing "the" between "was" and "member"

  • "He was married to Ann Charteris, who had been divorced from the second Viscount Rothermere because of her relationship with Fleming. The couple had one son, Caspar, although both had affairs during their marriage." --> "He was married to Ann Charteris, who was divorced from the second Viscount Rothermere as a result of her affair with Fleming. Fleming and Charteris had a son called Caspar." I would leave "although both had affairs during their marriage" for the body of the article.
Birth and family
  • Do we need to mention his birthday again here? It's already in the lede and info box.
Education and early life
  • "Fleming was sent in 1914 to Durnford School, a preparatory school on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset." --> "In 1914 Fleming attended Durnford School, a preparatory school on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset." sounds better.
  • "The school was near the estate of a family called Bond".--> "The school was near to the estate of the Bond family" sounds better.
  • The Eton College image would be better moved down so its not squeezing the text against the quote box.
  • "Although not one of the academic stars of the school" --> "Although not one of the highest achieving students of the school..."
  • "While in Geneva, Fleming became engaged to a French-Swiss woman, Monique Panchaud de Bottomes" --> "While in Geneva, Fleming began a romance with Monique Panchaud de Bottomes and the couple were briefly engaged"
  • "Fleming bowed to family pressure in October 1933, and moved into the banking world with a position at financiers Cull & Co.[19] He was not a good banker, and in October 1935, became a stockbroker with Rowe and Pitman on Bishopsgate, London, a position in which he also performed poorly." --> "Fleming bowed to family pressure in October 1933, and moved into the banking profession with a position at the financiers Cull & Co. In 1935, he moved to Rowe and Pitman in Bishopsgate as a stockbroker. Fleming was unsuccessful in both roles."
World War II
  • "(whose) Biographer Andrew Lycett notes that Fleming had "no obvious qualifications" for the role."
  • Link to blueprint

More to come -- CassiantoTalk 12:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cassianto—much appreciated. I've covered all the points with the exception of the birth date, which is a bit of a moot point. Both the infobox and the lead are supposed to reflect what's in the article: the citations for the info are connected to the reference in the article as opposed to the ones in the lead to reflect this. If you think it's a bit of overkill having it there, then I can remove it and drop the relevant citation into the lead sentence. Let me know your thoughts. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I don't like info boxes and never use them so I'm not sure of the regs around this. Sorry I mislead you. The mention in the lede is essential. My point was for the repetition in the Birth and family section to be addressed. The full use of it in the opening para of the first section in the body is somewhat divided. I personally think it is not needed see here, here, and here for FA's not using it. I'm not fussed about this point as like I say, some do repeat the full birth date and some don't. Maybe we could barter on this and just include the year? -- CassiantoTalk 14:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A worthy compromise! Now done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
T-Force

*"Fleming sat on the committee that selected the targets for this unit, and he helped create what were known as the "Black Books" issued to the officers of this unit." --> "Fleming sat on the committee that selected the targets for the T-Force unit, and helped create what became known as the "Black Books" which were issued to the unit's officers." Do you know what the "Black Books" contained? Did they contain the targets?

  • "It was responsible for securing targets of interest to the British military" --> To the British military or for the British military?
Personal life and interests
  • "Fleming was a bibliophile who, from 1929 onwards and with the assistance of bookseller Percy Muir, collected a library of over one thousand of what Fleming described as "books that made things happen." --> Fleming was a bibliophile who, from 1929 onwards and with the assistance of bookseller Percy Muir, collected a library of over one thousand written documents Fleming described as "books that made things happen." -- I have used "written documents" but it may be books or something similar. Whatever it is, there feels like there is word missing between "thousand" and "of".
  • "The name of the house and estate where he wrote his novels has many possible sources. Ian Fleming himself mentioned both his wartime Operation Golden Eye and Carson McCullers' 1941 novel, Reflections in a Golden Eye." --> As what? inspirations for the name? Why did he mention these?
  • "On Fleming's return to civilian life in May 1945, he joined the Kemsley newspaper group, which at the time owned The Sunday Times. As Foreign Manager, Fleming oversaw the work of the paper's worldwide network of correspondents." --> "Upon Fleming's demobilisation in May 1945, he joined the Kemsley newspaper group, which at the time owned The Sunday Times. Fleming was employed as Foreign Manager and oversaw the work of the paper's worldwide network of correspondents."
  • "Baron O'Neill, who would be killed in action on the Italian front in 1944." --> "Baron O'Neill, who was killed in action on the Italian front in 1944.
  • "She then expected to marry Fleming, but he decided to remain a bachelor, so on 28 June 1945, she married the second Viscount Rothermere." --> "Her desires to marry Fleming were not mutual as he decided to remain a bachelor, so on 28 June 1945, she married the second Viscount Rothermere."
  • "In 1948 she gave birth to a daughter by Fleming, Mary, although the child lived for only a few hours." --> "In 1948 she gave birth to a daughter called Mary, who was fathered by Fleming, but the child lived for only a few hours."

More soon...-- CassiantoTalk 19:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks once again: all now done (with two minor tweaks: "one thousand copies of what.." and "Her desire to marry Fleming was not mutually held". I'm not sure about my version of the second one tho... - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
looks OK. -- CassiantoTalk 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit also looks good. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing career

*"He started writing the book at Goldeneye on 17 February 1952, typing out 2,000 words in the morning directly from his own experiences and imagination and completing the script in just over two months." --> "He started writing the book at Goldeneye on 17 February 1952, gaining inspiration from his own experiences and imagination. He completed the script in just over two months."

  • I would mention the fact that Jonathan Cape is a publisher as saying simply "Jonathan Cape" is a bit ambiguous.
  • "At first, Cape were unenthusiastic about the novel, but Fleming's brother Peter, whose books they had published..." --> had they published Peter's books prior to this or after?
  • Any chance of a current equivellent of 10s, 6d?
  • "Three print runs were needed in April and May to cope with sales, and they all sold out." --> "Casino Royale was a success and needed three print runs to cope with the sales, all of which sold out."
  • Link to MI6.
  • Link to birdwatching
  • Was the earlier mentioned John Bond beared in mind during Bonds creation?
Dr. No (1958) to Octopussy and The Living Daylights
  • "That began to change in March 1958 when Bernard Bergonzi, in Twentieth Century, attacked Fleming's work..." --> Sorry, what is Twentieth Century?
  • Biographer Andrew Lycett --> Again, I would call him Fleming's biographer.
  • I had to search "novelization" to gain an understanding on its meaning. A link would be helpful.
  • Poor old Fleming seems to have died twice. At the end of the "Dr. No (1958) to Octopussy and The Living Daylights (1966)" section and again in the "Death and legacy" section. Or was this a case of "You Only Live Twice? (boom boom!)

Last lot to follow... -- CassiantoTalk 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Two points: Peter had books published before and after Ian - I've not altered any test here, so let me know if you want me to clarify the point in the article. Secondly, I've not found any of the sources that note the connection between Fleming's choice of name and the 'Dorset Bonds'. Thanks again for your thoughts - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood both points. Leave Peter's comment then. As for the Dorset Bonds, I think it is too much of a coincidence for it not to have been a namesake of character and story. My money says that it was! Leave that too. -- CassiantoTalk 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realised there was one further point that I didn't cover: the question of the LSD conversion. I don't know how it could be done to translate to a modern figure. Do you have any thoughts? - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be £23.24 (as of year 2000) see here. Add the current rate of inflation to the modern day, and your getting on for £30.00. Don't break your neck over this. If you can't find an exact figure don't worry about adding it. It's not that essential to the article. -- CassiantoTalk 00:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll leave out the conversion. A similar conversion function at The National Archives gives a very different result! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, no problem. -- CassiantoTalk 10:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Death and legacy

Rather than listing some very minor coments, I carried out some minor copy edits instead as this section was largely OK. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works
  • The nominator and I have discussed this section in his sandbox talk page and a reconstruction was made. I was in favour of deleting the table in favour of explaination set in text and the nominator obliged. The nom was also keen to keep a short list of books in a table format. I explained that this would be a little redundant and quite repetitive as it was now all listed in the 1950s and 1960s sections. -- CassiantoTalk 11:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've altered the Works section so that the table now includes all his published works, and removed the unpublished works section, moving the text into the main article. If other reviewers are also not comfortable with the table at the end of the article, I would be happy to try to incorporate the information into the article's body. Thanks again, Cassianto, your efforts are really appreciated! - Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All of my above comments have been addressed and the above table issues have now been resolved. This is an engaging and informative article and one which I am happy to support. Well done SchroCat! -- CassiantoTalk 15:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Wikipedia has set a very high standard for its writer-biography FAs—see Ernest Hemingway, Stephen Crane, Balzac or Shakespeare—and this article isn't there yet.

  • Lead: very jumbled. The too-long opening sentence is followed by his background and childhood. Then there is an abrupt statement about the Bond series' commercial success, followed by Fleming's war accomplishments (which happened before he ever wrote a word of Bond, yes?). Then comes the 2008 ranking of best writers, before cutting back 44 years to his personal life and death. To finish off, a summary of Bond's appearances in other media. In short, the lead needs a complete rewrite.
  • Looking at the other writer FAs, is the infobox required at all? It's useful for album and TV show articles, which have a lot of numerical info, but here?
  • Article structure: strangely organised. The "Biography" section ends in 1935, before he did anything of note, which is confusing because there is also a "Personal life" section much later on. It is very difficult to figure out whether the article is intended to be chronological or not. My advice: deal with his life completely chronologically in a big Biography/Life section; divide that into sub-sections of the various eras of his life.
  • Comprehensiveness: I think there needs to be a separate, non-biographical section (similar to, say, Emily Dickinson#Poetry) that deals exclusively with Fleming's writing—his style, the themes of his novels, the concerns of his characters etc. I also think you should separate the Legacy, Influence and Adaptations of his work from his death. Even this needs expansion; I don't see enough about, say, the impact Bond has had in recasting the spy as a suave, sexy character in the eyes of the public.
  • Prose: try to maintain consistent paragraph size. For eg: "For the first five books..." is huge; "After the publication..." is only a couple of sentences long.
  • Focus on the subject: the article is about Fleming, not his creation James Bond. So I don't see how an exhaustive list of post-Fleming Bond authors is necessary.
  • Excessive non-free media: apart from the primary Fleming pic and the Bond sketch, I don't see how the other non-free pics satisfy WP:NFCC and are not merely decorative (eg: the book covers themselves aren't being critiqued).
  • "Works": the cites are unnecessary, as the information is uncontroversial and self-referential. I also think a simple bulleted list is sufficient (you can add a note for the non-Bond books):
  • Prune the external links list per WP:EL.

Note that these aren't nitpicks of prose and style; I think there are significant, structural faults with the article, which cannot be resolved within the length of an FAC. I suggest looking at our newer writer FAs (I listed a few above) for ideas to improve.—indopug (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments: I've addressed each in the same order below:
  • The lead. Quite correct, it was slightly jumbled: it is now more consistent with the article structure and reads much better too.
  • The infobox. Although three of the writers you cited (Hemingway, Balzac and Shakespeare) all have infoboxes, I've removed Fleming's one.
  • Oh, my mistake, I thought infoboxes were deprecated in biographies. You can add it back if you prefer it, but I felt focussed too much on tangential matters like the names of his relatives.—indopug (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the infobox was repetitive and agree with its deletion. The article looks much better for it. -- CassiantoTalk 11:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an issue: if the first two reviewers both say to drop it, then it's dropped. If there's a sudden (and very unlikely) groundswell of opinion to re-include it, it can always go in later. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure. Now all the relevant biographical information is contained in the Biography section, with non-biographical outside that section.
  • Comprehensiveness. I'll get back to you on this point shortly
  • Consistent paragraph size. A tricky one this, as paragraphs should not be laid out dependent on a regular size, but on the development of one single point or idea. So the "For the first five books..." paragraph is about the criticisms about the book, and the criticisms had a large impact on Fleming and his subsequent works, so it needs looking at to the extent we have and to split it would be to split the point in two, which is an unhelpful step. I've merged the "After the publication..." paragraph with the something that just about classes as the same point.
  • Subject: Fleming's legacy was Bond and more the literary Bond than the film incarnation, so I think the literary legacy through the authors can be justified in this case.
  • IMO just saying "Starting with Kingsley Amis' Colonel Sun (1968), several authors have been commissioned to write Bond novels" is enough; naming each writer and book is not necessary or interesting.

The movies: Maybe also mention in a couple of lines how the film character and stories are different from the Fleming originals?—indopug (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought about that apect, but it seemed a little too far removed from an article about Fleming himself - the film version is the intreptation of the seven actors, six producers and host of directors. If you want I can draft something up for you to see? Let me know. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media: I've trimmed all but one of those you suggested. I've left in Casino Royale as this was the cover designed by Fleming himself (referenced in the text).If you still feel this falls outside NFCC then it can also go.
  • Works: Done as advised
  • Links: Now heavily trimmed in line with WP:EL
Thanks again and I'll revert shortly concerning your point on comprehensiveness. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my criticism in the right spirit. I'm not ready to strike my Oppose yet, but I am confident this is on its way. A few replies inlines; I'll do more-thorough section-by-section reviews in a few days.—indopug (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I was shaken, not stirred, by the prose in the lead.
  • Our article on Operation Golden Eye says it was developed by Fleming; the lead of this article says he was "involved in the planning stages", which sounds like a much smaller role. Also, Operation Golden Eye doesn't appear again after the lead, at least by that name. Also, I don't get the sense from our article that Operation Golden Eye was a failure, but I do from this: "... Operation Mincemeat and Operation Golden Eye, the former of which was successfully carried out."
  • "overseeing": oversight (unless "oversight" has a different meaning in this context)
  • "His experiences of wartime service provided much of the background and detail of the twelve Bond novels, and his career as a journalist added colour and depth to the stories.": Not quite right; you can have experiences in wartime service, but that's a little vague, and careers don't contain colour (unless you're a painter). Try something shorter: "His wartime service and career as a journalist provided" ... something.
  • "The Bond series ranks among the best-selling series": it's fine to use a word that takes the same plural as singular form ... not so much to use it in both senses in quick succession.
  • "as a result of her affair with Fleming": after her affair with Fleming. See WP:Checklist#because. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments—I've addressed each in the same order below:
  • Golden Eye. Firstly it does appear in the main body of the article—and under that name—it's the paragraph before the "30 Assault Unit" sub-section. Secondly, do you mean this article? It's only six lines long and has just one citation (and that contains slightly questionable info as it's more to do with the sale of Fleming's passport than the plan itself). The operation was a contingency plan only (in case the Nazis invaded Spain). They never did and so the plan remained just that. As it remained untested it can't be called either a success or failure.
  • Oversight: now changed
  • Experiences and colour: "colour" is a journalistic phrase too, relating to the addition of realism to their stories. However, as this may not be widely known enough, I've tweaked the sentence.
  • Series etc: Done
  • "as a result of" is correct—the affair was the cause. "After" just looks like it chronologically followed.
Thanks again for your thoughts
  • Many thanks for those. I've tweaked one of them—the passage relating to the death of Valentine—and altered the reference to the "result of an affair". Are you also saying "illegitimate" is wrong? - SchroCat (^ • @)
    • "Illegitimate" is a tough word; it was fine in many contexts 30 years ago, and is still fine in some contexts, but I think in Wikipedia or in everyday conversation, yes, it's better to avoid it now when you can ... and I think you can, here. Btw ... sorry, I've got a lot of stuff swimming around in my head, and I did a bad job with a couple of edits and a couple of comments in this one, I'll pay more attention in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dank, It's not a problem—it's making me look again at sections with a critical eye, so it's no bad thing at all. I've changed Illegitimate, but only grudgingly: FAC may have their views on the English language, but it is an entirely acceptable term (esp in Br Eng) and has a basis in law, rather than general everyday definition. - Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Garner's is the style guide most often consulted by American copyeditors, and it pays a lot of attention to BrEng, too. It says: "... still often used, and although it's undeniably better than bastard, it's also undeniably insensitive. As a far-sighted judge once observed, 'There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.'" - Dank (push to talk) 10:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "He also became involved in editing a magazine": Usage for "involved" these days is, well, involved :) We've had many discussions about it over at Milhist. Was he the editor?
  • "a mistress": The word usually implies that he was married; was he?
  • 1921 ... 1925 ... 1927 ... 1927 ... 1921. Chronological is usually better, unless there's a strong thematic counterargument.
  • " to improve Fleming's maturity": I'm not sure what this means.

Comment & question. An editor who has undertaken a few (19) edits on this page has reverted the removal of the infobox, (which I have again removed and tried to explain the reasons behind it) and started an RfC to have the infobox reverted. I have asked them to raise comments here, which I think would be more suitable, but they declined saying that "this is an issue which requires wider consensus". Please see Talk:Ian Fleming#Infobox. If two decisions come out from the two processes going forward, could I ask who takes precedence in a matter such as this: a consensus at RfC, or the decision at FAC (with which the nominator wholly agrees)? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since many biographies have infoboxes and many don't, you probably don't have to worry about this affecting the FAC one way or the other. Since it's peripheral to the FAC and you want to be spending your time at FAC on the issues that actually affect the FAC, I recommend you not worry about it either way until the FAC is over. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great: thanks for the advice. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The infobox should be added back as it has important information. Many users are searching for a specific information, say genre, then it can be really frustrating without the infobox. So I strongly suggest to add it back. The same for spouse, relatives and signature. The "here,here,here..." spam consists mainly of conductors and composers, which are actually almost ever without infobox. Regards.--GoPTCN 14:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I need more to understand what you're asking for, GOP. Are you saying that you'd like a change to Wikipedia's guidelines to require infoboxes for all biographies? Or are you saying that you want infoboxes only for FACs? Or only some biographies? Have you asked for opinions over at WT:BIOG? - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment: I'll point out that you are part of that edit warring and you have been asked to self-revert on that basis. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made exactly one edit to the article not knowing that there was a dispute on the talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BR, I am not going to be drawn into an argument over this, but you saw what had been going on in the edit history. Many of the edit summaries around the infobox refer to the talk page, so it's a little disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Your action, in the light of those summaries and the fact that you chose not to look at the talk page has not been helpful in the circumstances, and you choice of profanities in your talk page comment has again not helped an already over-heated situation. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the top edits; Cassianto's and Rangoon11's. I don't make it a habit of reviewing the whole history of an article before making a reasonable edit. I had not looked at the talk page at all, and only looked here for the "Indopug" comment Cassianto referred to. fyi, I find it fascinating that you're edit warring in there over the removal of an image that you uploaded. (aside; I called the infobox removal rationale "bullshite". I said "Christ", too.) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find you are involved. -- CassiantoTalk 16:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I did post to the talk when I looked further ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At Milhist, we almost never have the problem of edit-warring to the point of failing FAC criteria, so I'm not sure how to handle this. Br'er, I've noticed all your edits on articles headed to and at FAC; thanks for that. Here's what I want to suggest for how to interpret the FAC (and GAN) "stability" criterion: if someone makes an edit one way or the other on the point that's being considered "unstable", then they're involved, and therefore not in a position to make an objective "support" or "oppose", at least concerning the stability criterion for that one issue. It doesn't really matter whether they "noticed" or not; either way, they're involved. Is that okay with you, Br'er, at least as a general principle? - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted the comment from Dank. Do you want me to strike my support based on the last? -- CassiantoTalk 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, you did a very thorough review. The delegates know that you are taking a position on that issue, and they are free to discount or not discount your opinion on that one issue since you're involved; that's what they get paid for (or would get paid for ...) - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news. I am involved in the talk page discussion currently, so I didn't want my position as reviewer to become untenable as a user suggested. I will leave it be then. :-) -- CassiantoTalk 17:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank. Terima kasih. I've tweaked my initial post to 'comment'. The fact remains that there's an ongoing dispute and RfC on that talk page and it's rolled on without me; the article is still unstable. I have now made some other edits to the article such as fixing conflated named refs and the faux-headers in one section. The article seems in pretty good shape ({{sfn}}, for example). A pity, really, that they're scuppering this over such a common feature as an infobox. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Just saw this revert. That's at odds with WP:MOSHEAD and wp:Deviations. Headers should be done with '=' for the most part, not apostrophes, and the br-elements are there only to avoid a blank line. This is not proper form. It is fundamental to being our 'best' that articles hew to best practise, such as using normal wiki formatting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section was put in at the request of indopug, who said "there needs to be a separate, non-biographical section (similar to, say, Emily Dickinson#Poetry)". This copies that style, with the exception of the bullet point. Dank, if you want me to tweak to include the bullet point I will happily do so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug? Br'er? - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the section. My fix was to properly implement the headings, which was reverted. Two of the faux-sections are multi-paragraph, which is not really what bulleted list items are for (at least not on wiki web pages;). I assume the ref to the Belle of Amherst to be to Flowers and gardens and such, which are single paragraph and as bulleted items don't warrant headings.
I believe what's happened here is that by my having restored the infobox they hate, I have become persona non grata. Cassianto suggested on the article talk that I be ostracised. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, BR, that's not the case and please try and stick to the matter in hand, rather than veer into smear and innuendo. As per my edit summary, I reverted your edit because it was not necessary and, as per my comment above, because I was following the format of Dickinson. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now tweaked into paragraphs, rather than headings. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I suggest we ostracise Brer Rabbit in this discussion until he/she can adopt a more friendly tone."
And I've said that headings should be headings. You are using inappropriate markup. Full stop. Your tweak both removes the faux-headings and veers into an inappropriate use of MOS:BOLD. These should be level four headings. And you weren't following the format of Dickinson; that's an unordered list (that would be better implemented as a definition list). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the edits, no-one else, so, again, please try to avoid smear and innuendo. You have not "become persona non grata" at all and to suggest so is disingenuous. I will put the text into sub-sub categories, even though I cannot see exactly where in MOSHEAD it says they need to be so arranged. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just made it a definition list. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BR, sorry - I stuck in the headers as requested. Which format works best? - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) and was undone, again. Not my input, obviously. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Br'erRabbit, I said what I said because of the foul language which was completely uncalled for. I suggested a moment of refelection before continuing. Your input is valued (I'm tending to agree with the section headings) but I will not engage with people who are rude from the word go. -- CassiantoTalk 21:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I called your rationale for removing the infobox "bullshite". I believe I've acknowledged that already on this page. From my perspective you and Schrodinger have been an aggressively rude tag team from the moment I touched your article (hint: With all due respect, it's not about dirty words;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BR, In order that this review can continue along peaceful lines without denigrating into a slanging match, could I please ask you to withdraw that; it's not helpful and it's certainly not true. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can ask, but I'll change my opinion when I see a change in your approach. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you consider my approach to be aggressive, but I am sure you are entitled to your opinion over it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing was inappropriate. A simple "incorrect rational" or words to the effect of would have sufficed. Move back to the talk page. This is not the correct place to be holding this discussion. -- CassiantoTalk 22:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cuss you out, I derided your rationale for your inappropriate removal of the infobox. Claiming that a comment made on this page is determinative of the inclusion of the infobox is "..." ;) Above, Schrodinger called for Rangoon to discuss here, rather than the talk page. Now you want my comments out of sight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawal I am extremely sorry to have to withdraw this article from FAC, but I feel that the current nomination is untenable. I feel that the article itself is of sufficient quality to be an FA and I hope to re-nominate once tempers on the talk page have calmed down sufficiently. Many thanks to all those who have spent considerable time in reviewing this article, which has improved immeasurably because of your help, and I can only apologise if you feel that time has been wasted. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:30, 26 July 2012 (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/Ian_Fleming/archive1&oldid=1089817431"