Talk:Dr. No (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Dr. No (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

I don't think the article should be split into a separate article for the soundtrack. It works just fine where it is, and the Dr. No page isn't terribly long. Leave it there. --CaesarGJ 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion to leave it as is. Sblowes 06:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Racism?

There should be a section about the way that females and black people are portrayed in the film. It may not have mattered at the time, but the way that both Honey and Quarrel are portrayed as being very naive should be mentioned, the same with all the females in the early films. There are two bits that are almost too hard to watch these days: First of all, I think the girl at the front desk of Bond's hotel says something like "One of the blacks brought it for you" or something like that. Also when Bond says to Quarrel "Fetch my shoes". (Bubz chilis (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Mistake in Plot Section

I took away the link to General Potter, as this incorrectly linked to Commissioner Duff.
Jb.agent007 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critique

Should we add any info. on the critiques the film received?  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Sean Connery

The current image seems warped. I think that a screenshot would do better. Cliff smith 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

It's ok so far, but some things really distract. IMDB is not a reliable source, as it's a wiki that doesn't cite sources, and there isn't much on the reaction. Remember, this is the first Bond film: how did book fans react? Bad reviews? You can't just use Rotten Tomatoes' rose-tinted memories of the film. Alientraveller 10:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

My comments:

  • The lead is a bit choppy, the prose needs to flow better in my opinion.
    • Y Done
  • The lead overview of the plot needs a bit of work - Bond meets Ryder and suddenly they're both captured, I can understand why Bond was captured, but why Ryder, what does she have to do with anything?
    • Y Done
  • "..in order to avenge himself on the West..." why?
    • Y Done
  • "Dr. No's success, as the first Bond film, ..." - was the success due to it being the first Bond film?
    • Y Done
  • "Through Ken Adam,..." what did he do?
    • Y Done
  • Background section prose needs work.
  • "...producers offered the part ..." - is the director really "a part"?
    • Y Done
  • Disambiguate Guy Green.
    • Y Done
  • "...that Young, could make..." - why comma?
    • Y Done
  • "(see Thunderball Conflict)" - yuck, wikilink this intelligently in the prose rather than (see ...).
    • Y Done
  • Why wikilink Brocolli in the Search for an actor section when he's already wikilinked in the lead, and not in the Background?
    • Y Done
  • "...due to having seen..." not pleasant reading.
    • Y Done
  • "...October 4, 1962;only one day..." wikilink whole day, why semi-colon?
    • Y Done
  • "relativly" - spell check required.
    • Y Done
  • "Gun barrel" or "gunbarrel" - consistency required.
    • Y Done
  • No citations for the final paragraph of Themes which asserts a number of 'facts'.
  • "...England .The..." - copyedit required.
    • Y Done
  • Flow Filming paragraphs into one.
    • Y Done
  • "(by the Three Blind Mice)" - why in parentheses?
    • Y Done
  • "At the airport in Kingston, Bond walks past a suspicious female photographer who tries to take a picture of him, Bond is greeted by Mr. Jones a uniformed driver, saying he's been sent to drive him to Government House." - this sentence needs work.
    • Y Done
  • "Later through Pleydell-Smith, the local governor, and General Potter, who regularly played cards with Strangways. Bond learns that Strangways had recently taken up fishing and that he had hired a man in the harbour named Quarrel to guide him around." - these sentences need to be joined I assume?
    • Y Done

I'm half way through the article and really feel it needs to be seriously copyedited before it should be resubmitted for GA. I'm failing it for the time being until such can take place. The Rambling Man 11:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of these now corrected.... :) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

This article needs much more work before it can reach GA, several weeks, I would guess. It needs radical expansion based on substantial research in some sections and a significant amount of copy editing.

  • This article needs quite a bit of copy editing. Glaring problems: colloquial language, wordy sentences, imprecise diction, grammar mistakes, punctuation errors, dropped words, and awkward syntax.
    • Y Done
  • Much of the material listed under "Themes" reflects the plot rather than the themes. There is next to nothing on the actual themes of the film here. Such material can be found in the scholarship on this film. None of that has been used, meaning that the article does not represent the published work on the topic. Such works should lead you to yet other works of scholarship - that is the glory of a bibliography. This is what I found immediately on google scholar.
  • The plot summary is difficult to follow. Try to put yourself in the position of someone who hasn't seen the movie - that is who the plot summary is primarily for.
    • Y Done
  • The "Reception" section needs to be greatly expanded - cite some of the reviews from the 1960s, for example.
  • It would make more sense for the "Soundtrack" section to come before "Reception", since that is part of the discussion of the film itself.
    • Y Done

If you have any questions regarding this review, please drop me a line at my talk page. Awadewit | talk 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 26, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very well-written. Standout sections include the introduction and the synopsis. It's nice to see a plot section that acutally meets the definition of a summary. But I have one quick suggestion.
  • While the article generally does a great job of stating the obvious, isn't it perhaps overly modest to call it "just" a spy film in the intro? I suggest the first sentence should read, "Dr. No is an iconic 1962 spy film." That status is certainly supported by sources and further information in the intro.
2. Factually accurate?: Mostly great, just a few quick things.
  • Just for clarification, the sentence "When Harry Saltzman gained the rights for the James Bond book, he did not go through with the project" should say he initially did not go through with the project.
  • I just want to make sure the "fight with a giant squid" bit isn't a hoax. If no one has a solid source for this, then I can get access to the actual book fairly quickly.
    • The novel article also mentions the squid Vikrant Phadkay 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Most certainly broad and comprehensive.
4. Neutral point of view?: Sí, esto es bueno.
5. Article stability? Seems to be stable.
6. Images?: Images are good and properly licensed.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please address any improvements made or comments in a separate section below to preserve readability. Thanks VanTucky (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

Two of the three improvements are done. Vikrant Phadkay 16:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As to the squid thing: hoaxers often try to place the same hoax in several articles, so today I'll try and check it out for myself. Is it cited in the novel article? VanTucky (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's legit. As all the issues I brought uphave been addressed, I'm passing this article as GA-status. Congrats everyone! VanTucky (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences from the Novel?

Should the page have a section on differences between the Movie and the Novel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.173.146 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)