Talk:Octopussy and The Living Daylights

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Repeating information

I'm aware that the introduction to the article includes some of the information re:film adaptations and references that I have added to the individual story sections. I feel it's important to repeat this information because a) some readers will go straight to those individual sections and b) these individual stories are often directly linked from other articles, so some readers may come to them first and not see the introduction. 23skidoo (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

The book images that were deleted without discussion illustrate significant editions of this book, as indicated in their captions and in the text itself. 23skidoo (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Utterance of Property of a Lady

In reference to my revert, Bond utters the title at approximate 16:20 into the film. "We do have one thing, Minister: The Property of a Lady." 23skidoo (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Times

I feel it is worth mentioning that as part of the promotion for the forthcoming Devil May Care novel, The Times gave away a book containing two Bond stories, Octopussy and 007 in New York, on Saturday 17 May 2008. Should this be added, and if so, how? TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Best way to handle it is with a subsection. I think it's a valid addition to the article as it is, technically, a 4th edition of the original collection. Go for it if you haven't already. 23skidoo (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to add to the above, there's also supposed to be a new compilation of the Fleming short stories to tie in with Quantum of Solace ([1]) so that should also be mentioned here, too. 23skidoo (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, haven't checked in here for a few days. I'll add a subsection with the information. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Order

Why is "The Living Daylights" listed before "The Property of a Lady"? In my copy of the book, the order is "Octopussy", "The Property of a Lady", "The Living Daylights", and finally "007 in New York". Shouldn't the stories be listed in this order in the article? Emperor001 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• When the book was first published in 1966, it contained only Octopussy and The Living Daylights (hence the title). "Property of a Lady" and "007 in NY" were not added until later editions and therefore should be listed after "Daylights". The article at one point made this distinction clear - perhaps it's been made less clear in subsequent edits? 23skidoo (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We can't call it "usual order" because that implies the 1966 edition was unusual. The order of the stories is only as of the 2002 edition that includes 007 in New York. 23skidoo (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The events of "The Property of a Lady" takes place in June of 1961 (Tuesday, June 20th is the day of the auction) which would proceed the events of The Spy Who Loved Me since the events in The Spy Who Loves Me" takes place on Friday, October 13th, which occured in 1961.

We know that Bond was operating in North America in "The Spy who Loved Me" as part of Operation Bedlum. Therefore the events of "Thunderball" would have taken place probably in June of 1960 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdogg (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Octopussy and The Living Daylights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 15:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article for GA. I should have the review finished within a week at most (likely less time, though). Moisejp (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No disambiguation links or linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is very well written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All the sources I could check seemed OK, except for the points below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It covers the topic well

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The one image used has a FUR and is suitably captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, very nice work. Here are a few issues:

• The year for Barnes & Hearn was 2001 in References and 1997 in Bibliography. I presumed References was the most recent and more likely correct, so I changed Bibliography to 2001, but please check that this is correct.

• Yes, 2001 is the correct date and I'm not altogether sure why 1997 was in there!

• A few of the books in Bibliography (Linder, Comentale...) aren't referenced. Would it be better to put these in a Further Reading section?

• Done

• The sfn link doesn't work between McLusky et al. Horak in the References section and the book in the Bibliography section. (Not a big deal, but might as well be smooth and consistent whenever possible.)

• Done

• In the first line of Plots#The Living Daylights, should 272 be in quotation marks? I imagined it to be similar to 007, which isn't.

• Done

• Your text states "Fleming had already used Blackwell as the model for Pussy Galore in his novel Goldfinger". The source says "Blanche Blackwell, the love of his later life, was supposedly a model for the Sapphic pilot and martial-arts expert Pussy Galore in Goldfinger." "Supposedly" doesn't sound as certain as what you have written.

• Done

Hmm, I'm not really comfortable with having "supposedly" in an encyclopedia article. It sounds too gossipy. Sorry, I guess my comment above wasn't clear—that wasn't necessarily the solution I was thinking of. I think if you want to keep the sentence you need to find a way to have just the right balance that shows that this is not definitely a fact. But it's tricky because if the statement shows too little certainty of fact, it invites the question of whether it should be included at all. Would you consider removing the sentence? Or, if you feel strongly you'd like to keep it, yeah, I'm not sure what the best solution would be... Is there any possibility of finding another source to back it up? Moisejp (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Another idea: "Journalist Ian Thomson writes that Fleming may have used Blackwell as..." Moisejp (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found a better source, which frames it in a more succinct way, I hope! If it doesn't, then I'll take it out altogether - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• The biggest issue is this: in the lead you mention "007 in New York" as being a later edition to the book, but I couldn't find any mention of it in the Release and reception section.

• Largely because I cannot find any good references as to when it first went in! It certainly wasn't in the early editions but it is in the later editions, although when it first went in in unverifiable at the moment...

Moisejp (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

About, "007 in New York" would one idea be to write "By (19--), '007 in New York' had been added to the book." and you could write the year of the earliest edition that you definitely know includes it. It's not a perfect solution, but sometimes we are limited by our sources. ;-) Moisejp (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Done - British Library reference to 2002, which I think may be about the right date... - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've covered a couple of the straightforward ones and I'll sort out the others slightly later today. Thanks very much for the review - much appreciated. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think I've covered it all, but please let me know if there's something I've missed, or something you'd still like to see worked on. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

About the Blanche Blackwell reference, the problem with "joked" is that we really don't know whether he actually believed that it was true or not. If it was "Coward recalled with amusement how..." then that would be better, but I don't know what your source says. If you can't write that, then I'd prefer either taking it out, or my suggestion of "Journalist Ian Thomson writes that Fleming may have used Blackwell as..." (which sounds OK to me). I'll leave it up to you how you want to deal with that. In the meantime, I'm passing this article. Good work! Moisejp (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I took it out altogether: it was not central to this subject and I wasn't happy with the phasing anyway, so out it came. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)