Motifs in the James Bond film series has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 1, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

	James Bond GA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Film: British GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

An image used in this article, File:Dr No trailer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Motifs in the James Bond film series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk · contribs) 17:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks rather interesting, I'd be happy to review it. Its detail may mean the review will take a few days. To begin I'm going to make some changes to the structure, if anyone does not agree please do leave your remarks here. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. a)The article reads quite poorly. There are many copy mistakes, both silly errors and poor punctutation, larger syntax ones which sometimes cloud the meaning. Sometimes they're stylistic points, but the piece does not flow like it should. I've quite a lot of experience copy-editing film articles and am happy to do it myself, please explain points of dispute. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure there are any points of dispute - I copy edited a couple of your edits in order to improve the flow and to change a spelling mistake. I look forward to seeing the rest of the review. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming up to a week since any part of the review was undertaken: just wondering when you're going to pick up on this again? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Motifs in the James Bond film series/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 11:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Generally a very good article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   I have made a few copyedits for prose and MoS issues, discuss below if you disagree with them.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See below for a couple of points in this area.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   These are well done.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Points:

• The long quote box at the end seems out of place and undue weight to me for this article. It doesn't even contain the famous phrase. It's already in the Shaken, not stirred article, where it is appropriate, but I think it should be taken out of here.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, I think the "Bond ... James Bond" and "Shaken, not stirred" quotes themselves could be in centered blue boxes, to make them more visible. In particular, the first one kind of gets lost the way it is led into now.

• I've done the first and I'm just thinking over the second one - how to make it fit in well, without seeming contrived. I agree it should go in there, but just working out how! the second one too! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks better, but I think the first box should have the same format as the second, meaning it should be described as "Bond to numerous people, first heard in Dr. No." Also, is it "Bond, James Bond" or "Bond ... James Bond"? The article currently has both. Does the interval between the two parts change over time in the films? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Difficult to say about the spacing as it's on film, and it's transcribed in both formats by the various sources. (Additionally, the AFI have it as "Bond. James Bond.", just to add to the mix!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The one motif that I think is missing from the article are the one-liners Bond says. I don't have a comprehensive list, but there are several subcategories of them, including the ones said after dispatching a villain:
  • Bond, after killing Kananga by forcing an expanding air cartridge down his throat in Live and Let Die: “He always did have an inflated opinion of himself.”
  • Bond, after killing a villain with a spear gun in Thunderball: “I think he got the point.”
  • Bond, after electrocuting Oddjob in Goldfinger: “He blew a fuse.”
• and the double entendre lines, such as:
  • “Keeping the British end up, sir.”
  • “I always enjoyed learning a new tongue.”
• And it would be useful to include the actors' reactions to doing these one-liners. Pierce Brosnan later said he hated them: "It never felt real to me. I never felt I had complete ownership over Bond. Because you'd have these stupid one-liners — which I loathed — and I always felt phony doing them."

• I'll work on this over the next few days. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made a start on this under the slightly broader heading of "Humour", but stuggling to ensure it's not just a list of one-liners! - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the best section title really "Humour", or would "One-liners" be better? Are there other humourous motifs besides the one-liners, such as visual ones? I think an example or two is needed of Moore self-mockery, and "wink at the audience" needs to be either attributed in text or paraphrased. An example or two of Brosnan one-liners would also be helpful. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry—I missed this one before. I think "Humour" is a better title and I've added a couple of non-verbal elements which illustrate additional points. I've also added a Brosnan quote to even it out. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, this section looks good now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the article is well-structured and I look forward to it reaching the GA level, but putting on hold for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article some more, I think it would benefit from some kind of closing section that discusses the overall effect that these motifs have had on the series. Have they helped give some thematic cohesiveness to a series that has otherwise varied greatly in style, pacing, casting, etc? Have they helped maintain the films' longstanding commercial appeal? Or have they contributed to a sense of cheesiness and self-parody that some think has set in? That kind of thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how much there is: the authors that identify the elements tend to do so in order to examine each film in the light of the motifs and end up looking at individual films, rather than the overall series. However, I'll have a better look and see what I can come up with. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gone through the sources agin and I can't find anything that would adequately suit what you're saying. I know exactly what you mean, but nothing I have links the effect of the elements with the series as a whole, only on the individual films. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to look a bit on my own for this. The article just feels incomplete without it. Also note that there is an unresponded-to suggestion on the "Humour" section above. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No problems. I've found that things that there are not many things that look specifically at the motifs that run through the series and I've not found anything that summarises the overall effect on the series. Hope you find something, but I suspect that most of the things that criticise the series (or praise it) will do so on a more general level and not focus on the effect of these elements. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just by its subtitle alone, I would think the Jütting book James Bond Over the Decades: Formula Vs. Innovation would have material along these lines. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't, I'm afraid. It has a lot of info about each of the elements (which is why it's been used extensively over the article) but nothing that states the effect of these motifs onto the series as a whole. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I spent some time at the library. Did find one book you don't list, Laurent Bouzereau's The Art of Bond, which has lots of comments from people involved in all sorts of aspects of the films. Especially good in how they dealt with the humour and one-liner and famous quotation 'requirements'. Some grist for the section I had in mind, but not enough. No matter, guess one must leave room for FA work. Now passing this for GA, good job. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fantastic news—many thanks indeed! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, nearly every Bond film has some scene with him in a Casino interacting with the Bond girl. Should this be mentioned? Agmenia (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.Phd8511 (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: it's not true for a start. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is usually a scene where there is a large battle between the two opposing forces (Moonraker, You Only Live Twice, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.204.61 (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is sometimes a climax to the film that involves a large battle scene, sometimes not: either way we're covered in the "Climax" section. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has recently been removing quotes, claiming them not to be quotes, despite the words being in quotation marks, and carrying valid sources. This is vandalism, nothing more, and despite being asked to use the talk page instead of continuing to vandalise the article, then have just kept on reverting. IP: do you have something to say about the use of quotes here, or are you just being troublesome? - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise for your offensive and ridiculous accusation of vandalism. Once you've done that, I'll do my best to explain some basic principles of encyclopaedia writing to you. 201.215.252.50 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself and stop warring IP. Now discuss the matter in hand if you have issues with it. Cassianto^talk 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotes counts as fair use. Lifting of chunks of text verbatim when you can quite obviously write the text in the voice of the encyclopaedia does not. For example:

Commander James Bond, CMG, RN—code number 007—is a fictional character created by the British journalist and novelist Ian Fleming in 1952

is fine.

James Bond is "a British literary and film character, a peerless spy, notorious womanizer, and masculine icon (Encyclopaedia Britannica)"

is not. Who here comprehends that difference? Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.252.50 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have provided no evidence of ANY copyright violations at all, and you have edit warred with two editors FIVE TIMES in your erroneous grasp of what a "violation" is. I have happily reported you for the edit warring and will wait to see if you can give any - ANY - examples of violations before asking the good people who run our copyright checks to see if they can find anything at all wrong with what is on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that the user at IP 201.215.252.50 has been blocked for edit warring and, in particular, has continued to argue with other editors about copyright law. That user is continuing to make false statements in edit summaries, such as "Lifting text verbatim from sources instead of writing your own words is a copyright violation", which of course is blatantly false, as he well knows. Copyright law has been clearly explained to him. The quotations in the article (what the user tendentiously calls "chunks" of text) do not violate the Fair Use Doctrine. I didn't realize he was still engaging in his behavior.

Fair Use does indeed include "lifting chunks of text verbatim" -- even if someone could avoid the quoting by writing the text "in the voice of the encyclopaedia" or not. There is no legal requirement that an encyclopedia article avoid "lifting chunks of text verbatim". The whole point of the Fair Use Doctrine is that you CAN quote from sources, within certain limits. The "chunks" of quotes in this article are well within the limits and scope of the Fair Use Doctrine. Famspear (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]