Talk:Tintin and the Picaros/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "of Tintin's old friend, General Alcazar." You either need to drop the comma or specify that it's one of Tintin's old friends.
  • I've dropped the comma. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "a critical reception" Slightly jarring- on WP arts articles, "critical reception" typically refers to "reception by critics" rather than "a reception that was critical".
  • Good point. I've changed it to "poor reception". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Tintin joins his" Tintin and Snowy, I'm guessing?
  • Yes; I've made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "a man who had saved his life in The Broken Ear" I don't mind this, but I know some aren't keen on mixing the in-universe and real-world perspective like this. You could put the mention of The Broken Ear into an explanatory note. (Same with The Calculus Affair.) If you're not bothered, though, neither am I.
  • Let's leave it as is for now. Perhaps at a later date, in prep for FAC, it could be amended. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Do we know why there's such a long gap between Flight 714 and Tintin and the Picaros?
  • There was an increasing gap between the later Adventures of Tintin; I think that Hergé was just bored of the whole thing and wanted to enjoy a retirement, although I don't have the RS available to put that in the article. 15:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "He also inserted the Coconuts band into the carnival scene, who had been created by Bob de Moor for his own comic series, Barelli.[13]" I don't follow
  • I've changed this to the following: "Hergé also included a band known as the Coconuts into the carnival scene; these were not developed by Hergé himself but were rather the creations of his friend and colleague Bob de Moor, who had devised them for his own comic series, Barelli." Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Syldavian political leader Kurvi-Tasch instead" You described Kurvi-Tasch as the Bordurian leader earlier in the article- which is he? Or was he both?
  • My mistake! It should read "Bordurian". Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Could you check your Serres quote? I think there is at least one grammar error. I must also confess that I'm a little puzzled- it seems to be a response to a criticism that you have not made explicit (it sounds very interesting, though- an argument about revolution is something I'd be more than happy to see in this article!)
  • I've corrected the error in the Serres quote. I've also tried to expand a little further on the criticism of the book with regards to its portrayal of revolution. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Tintin's appearance at the end of his career was not only superfluous but a mistake" Have you missed a word here? I'm guessing he means that the change in appearance was superfluous and a mistake, but maybe something a bit bigger is being claimed?
  • You're right; I've missed out the opening words. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "over all it is a lacklustre story, missing the sparkly of a genuine Tintin adventure" Sparkle would fit better- could you check the original? Also, "not the drawings"- nor?
  • Correct on both points. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ridgewell is mentioned twice in the article, but not once in the plot; especially given Apostolidès's mention of him, perhaps an indication of the role he plays in the story would be in order?
  • Good point. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have to be honest: I'm not sold on the use of the non-free image. It seems to have been included just as a "look, here's a thing you may not have seen!" rather than a "here's a thing you have to see to understand this". It's also very large and contains a large number of panels. This article may be able to support more non-free images than just the title page (if a particular panel is mentioned as typifying the uninspired artistic style, for example, it could be a useful addition to the analysis section) but I do not think that this is it.
  • I agree. The image was not my own inclusion but something that has been in the article for quite some time. I shall remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

A very enjoyable read. If you're looking at FAC, you may want to look again at the lead and the analysis section (the latter is quite long- a reorganisation, perhaps even with subsections, might make it more readable, while the former could maybe be a bit smoother- wasn't the series already a defining part of the tradition by this time?) By the way, did you notice the press coverage a few weeks ago about Peeters being offered a post at Lancaster University? That may have brought a few eyes to Wikipedia's Tintin articles... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review, Josh - and for the news link; I wasn't aware that Lancaster had employed Peeters, that is an interesting development. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really happy with these fixes, and can see no reason not to promote this to GA status at this time. Do let me know if you're planning to take this to FAC in the future and I'd be happy to have another look. Great work. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)