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 21:24, 28 April 2007.

---

James Bond[edit]

I have nominated this article because of it's relevance to many different WikiProjects, it's presence on the most viewed pages list, and (in my opinion) it's well written form. James Bond has become a vital part of society, and this article definitely shows that. It is my belief that it belongs amongst Wikipedia's best. Ganfon 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unfortunately the references section is a disaster. It also -- at a glance -- doesn't seem to be comprehensive enough. It's more product than evolution of the character.-BillDeanCarter 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the comprehensive comment, but the reference disaster has been fixed. Ganfon 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should also note the publishers, the access date, the author if any, the date the article was written, etc... BTW, those references include AOL, IMDB, etc... Doesn't really cut it.-BillDeanCarter 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• also the literature available on this character will have to be heavily used, because this is James Bond, one of the most famous of all fictional characters. There must be a lot of scholarly journals discussing him.-BillDeanCarter 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the most important. There's probably a lot of criticism, influence on culture, and other goodies written about James Bond in the literature. I mean in General References you have Amis, Kingsley (1965). The James Bond Dossier, but nowhere is it used. Ditch the other stuff, and use that and some of them other apparently uncited references.-BillDeanCarter 07:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those general references have now been tied to general information and properlly listed in the reference section. Ganfon 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - Non-free images lack article-specific fair use rationale, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#10. Pagrashtak 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale has been added to images lacking it.Ganfon 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still problems. You don't need to add fair use rationale to public domain images, by the way. Only images claiming fair use.

• Image:007.svg has no rationale and is being used decoratively.
• The rationale for Image:Everything or Nothing.jpg says "For an article about a video game, the original poster is arguably one of the most important images that could be included", which would be great if this actually were an article about a video game.
• Image:Bonds-6.jpg is identified as replaceable, which means it fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1. Pagrashtak 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—references need proper formatting (try Template:Cite web). Prose is also a minor concern. Examples:
  • There are several stubby, one-liner paragraphs throughout. Please integrate these into larger paras.
  • The "moreover" in the first para can be dropped; I was drilled to overuse transitions and additive links in high school, but it actually breaks the flow of text on Wikipedia.
  • "In addition there are two independent productions and one Fleming-licenced American television adaptation of the first novel." Comma needed after "In addition".
  • "The EON Productions films are generally described as the "official" films originating with the purchase of the James Bond film rights by eventual producer Harry Saltzman in the late 1950's when Bond was a popular novel series, this term is used throughout this article." Significant deficiencies with punctuation in this sentence (comma where there should be a semicolon, lack of comma after "films", and excessive apostrophe in the date are a few).
• These are minor, random examples from the lead; however, they suggest that a final proofread is necessary. While someone does that, please fix the references. — Deckiller 09:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Considering James Bond has been around for decades I think this article cannot pass FAC until it looks very thoroughly at the literature surrounding the character. Themes, theories, etc... must be well documented by now by scholars.-BillDeanCarter 09:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As a Bond fan, I was excited to see this page come up, but I am disappointed with its quality. This article should rely on the scholarly sources that analyze Bond in the films and in the books. It does not make an attempt to do so, which makes its treatment of the topic cursory rather than comprehensive. The editors need to take some time to do a substantial amount of research and radically revise the page. As BillDeanCarter said, what are the themes of the books and movies? What literary styles are used? etc. This is more of a fan page, in my opinion, than a serious consideration of the Bond character. I also find the structure of the page odd - what is this page about, exactly? Is it about all things Bond or just the James Bond character? That is not clear (the video games and gadgets sections confused me, for example - the page's focus needs to be made much clearer). Also, some of the prose could be improved. Here are some examples of helpful sources I uncovered in a quick five-minute search:

• Commentale, Ed, ed. Ian Fleming and James Bond: The Cultural Politics of 007. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP; 2005.
• James Bond's 'Pussy' and Anglo-American Cold War Sexuality By: Jenkins, Tricia; Journal of American Culture, 2005 Sept; 28 (3): 309-17.
• The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen By: Black, Jeremy; Lincoln, NE: U of Nebraska P; 2005
• Lindner, Christopher, ed. The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader. Manchester, England: Manchester UP; 2003.
• The Bond Phenomenon: Theorising a Popular Hero By: Bennett, Tony; Southern Review: Literary and Interdisciplinary Essays, 1983 July; 16 (2): 195-225. Awadewit 06:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not enough credible sources especially for a topic as popular, large and as in-depth researched as this (numerous great books have been written on the subject and yet only a few are used here). Not enough information on some of the most basic topics; not as comprehensive as it should be. The section on the books is almost non-existent save for the huge list that is duplicated elsewhere numerous times. Says little or nothing on the success of the books which gave rise to the films. Hell the section on the music is bigger - that right there is a huge irreverence to the entire subject. No section on the theme of the books or I suppose even the films for that matter. Information just seems all over the place; poorly organized. Wikipedia is capable of so much more. It almost goes without saying that I've read numerous books on the subject, but this article just doesn't do James Bond much justice. Not in my opinion. K1Bond007 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Im sorry to say that I must oppose the FAC. The references section is a mess, and the article is very unorganised. Also, is this article about the character istelf? Or is it about the whole James Bond franchise? I first assumed the former, but there's so much different information in the article that it points towards the latter - • The Giant Puffin • 09:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.