Talk:Destination Moon (comics)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 14:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• Wikilink and capitalise "moon".
  • Good point. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot

• "they meet the Centre's leader" — Can be rephrased as " they meet the Centre's managing director" as Calculus says to Tintin that "Mr. Baxter is the director of the Centre."
  • Another good point. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wikilink "Circumlunar".
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• "with neither Haddock or Wolff able to explain what happened" — "with neither Haddock nor Wolff explaining clearly what happened".
  • Good call. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• "amnesia" would be better instead of "memory loss".
  • Looks like that's already been changed... Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• "After failing to bring his memory back through recent events, Haddock opts to use a violent shock to bring Calculus' memory back" — repetition of "memory back". Can be rephrased.
  • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• "lose consciousness" is more formal than "black out".
  • Good call. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Why no sources for the synopsis like the previous Tintin GAs?
  • A very good point. It's not an essential at the GA level, but I certainly will endeavour to add the synopsis sources before this article in the neer future. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

History

• "Prisoners of the Sun", "The Secret of the Swordfish", "The Secret of the Unicorn", "Red Rackham's Treasure", "The Seven Crystal Balls" "Land of Black Gold", "The Shooting Star", "Blake and Mortimer" and "The Mystery of the Great Pyramid" — All of them need dates of release as a book.
  • Done, although I thin that some confusion might be caused as a result. After all, many of these stories began serialisation many years before appearing in finished book form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Science-fiction redirects to "Science fiction". Fix the redirect.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Hergé retained some elements of this original script in his finished version, namely the scenes in which Haddock drinks whiskey in a gravity-free environment and that in which Haddock goes for a space walk and nearly becomes a satellite of Adonis, which appear on pages 5 and 8 of the final book version respectively." — "Hergé retained some elements of this original script in his finished version, namely the scenes in which Haddock drinks whiskey in a gravity-free environment and that in which Haddock goes for a space walk and nearly becomes a satellite of Adonis, which appear on pages 5 and 8 of Explorers on the Moon." As the scenes appear in Explorers on the Moon and not in Destination Moon.
  • A very good point! Changed to your suggested wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wikilink and change the word "rocketry". Rather sounds like "poultry" or "paltry". ;-)
  • I've changed it to "rockets". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wikilink "Putative space travel" for readers who might not have heard about it.
  • We don't have an article on putative space travel; it basically refers to ideas about space travel that existed prior to space travel actually being developed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• "He also visited the Center for Atomic Research" — Probably "He also visited the Atomic Research department"?
  • The sources used refer to it as the "Center for Atomic Research", which I presume is a more accurate translation of the department's actual name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• A mention about Wernher von Braun's V-2 would be great as the photo on page 136 of Farr's 2001 book shows. It could be something like which had been developed by German scientists, particularly the designs of Wernher von Braun, during World War II."
  • The text already discusses the influence of the V-2 design, and while I would be open to mention of voon Braun, it would be necessary to have reliable sources that specifically discuss this influence; we could not just rely on a picture in Farr. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The story began serialisation in Tintin magazine from 30 March 1950. It then began serialisation in the French edition of the magazine from 11 May 1950" — Did the English version began serialisation first on March 1950?
  • No, I'm not actually sure when it was translated into English (although it was published as a book in the UK in 1959). Rather the use of "French" here refers not to the French language, but to the country of France (i.e. it had already been serialised in the French language (and possibly in Flemish too) in Belgium, and subsequently was serialised in the French language in France). Do you think that it is worth making this clearer in the prose? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: It would be best to do so for clarity's sake. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Agreed and done. :) Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• "published by Editions Casterman" just "Casterman" with a wikilink would do. :-)
  • I've added a link although retained "Editions" because it is in the source material. Perhaps at the time the term "Editions" was more important to the company than it is now ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Nicely done once again, Midnightblueowl. Do ping me when you have resolved the comments. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Many thanks for doing this review. I've responded to all of your points and made alterations as a result of most of them. If there's anything else, then please don't hesitate to let me know. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

@Midnightblueowl: Thank you for resolving them, Midnightblueowl. Congratulations! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ssven! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: De Nada! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)