Talk:Tintin in Tibet/Archive 2

Pre-FAC review

Hello- per Prhartcom's request on my talk page, I'm taking a look through this article to see if anything is jumping out at me as needing fixing before FAC. J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello J Milburn, thank-you very much for your time to do this, and thanks also for your direct edits to the article. My comments follow each of yours, below. If you can, please reply to my questions and confirm your your informal approval to my resolutions below. Prhartcom (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• "differed from other stories in the series in that most of the characters were absent" This is a slightly curious claim. It is obviously not the case that most of Tibet's characters were absent, but most (that is, more than half) of the Tintin characters (perhaps even recurring Tintin characters) will be absent in many volumes. I think this needs to be rephrased. A link to List of The Adventures of Tintin characters would also be good.
  • I see what you mean; good observation. I believe I fixed it thus: "differed from other stories in the series in that most of the main characters were absent". Unless you prefer "differed from other stories in the series in that few characters were required", or something similar? I did not add a link to the List of The Adventures of Tintin article, but every character mentioned in this article links there.
  • Edit: I have just boldly tried a new approach: "differed from other stories in the series in that almost all characters were absent, save the few main characters".
    • Mezigue: I appreciate that you don't like Prhartcom's new wording, but just reintroducing the problematic old wording is not helpful. See my comment above- your wording seems to be either right in an extremely uninteresting way or wrong. I don't think it quite conveys the meaning you want it to. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Ha, I love that critique. Okay, let me know what you think of this; I have changed it to: "differed from other stories in the series in that only a few familiar characters were cast."
• "and has featured in exhibition." How about "and was the inspiration for a 2012 museum exhibition" or something?
  • I do like how succinct mine is, not containing specifics which are gleaned further down. I think you are trying to tell me that the "Tintin in Tibet has been adapted" phrase must match the "exhibition" phrase. I have changed it to the matching: "and has been featured in an exhibition".
• "revealed as a large anthropoid," Interesting and important, but perhaps this is not part of the plot as such, and perhaps it should be referenced?
  • I see what you mean. FYI, this word "anthropoid" is not mentioned in the plot nor in the sources. I located the edit where it was simply added one day. It does seem to be the correct word, though, doesn't it? For that reason, may we keep it? Or if not, perhaps change it to "cryptid", a word used further down?
    • Personally I think the phrase is fine. It is part of the plot even if the word is not used: it's a visual revelation. It makes sense to put it in the plot because otherwise the reader might wonder what the yeti actually is in this book. Mezigue (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • We already know that the yeti is a cryptid- it's the paradigmatic cryptid! Perhaps a footnote could be added, saying something like "The yeti is portrayed as a brown, hairy simian, significantly larger than the human characters." This information feels important- I'm surprised none of the authors have mentioned it. In my imagination, a yeti is usually white and bestial in a way that this one is not. I'm nervous about drifting into OR territory, though. What do you think? J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I appreciate your trust in me to ask, and I admit it is satisfying that I seem to know the answer: No original research. I have not added any yet and I won't start now. Allow me to kindly confirm that your nervousness serves you well. I think I finally see what you are saying: You have a preconceived notion of what the Yeti is, and Hergé created a completely different Yeti, so that feels important. But I admit I do not feel the way you do, I am not surprised none of the authors mentioned it, and I don't think it is important. In my imagination, I see no creature at all, neither brown nor white, not tall nor short, as the creature has never existed except in various author's fictional depictions. If those depictions are inconsistent with each other, it matters not. As for this word "anthropoid" (and I asked user Mezigue to comment here because he was the one who added it to the article), it seems to be the correct descriptive word, therefore let us continue to use it. Does that sound right?
• "The Yeti sadly watches their departure from a distance." Presumably, you don't mean that it's sad that it watches, but that it watches with sadness- if so, it should be rephrased. If the former, it's unclear what is being said.
  • Yes, I meant the latter. If it were the former, it would say "Sadly, the Yeti watches" but it's the latter, so it says "The Yeti sadly watches". Rephrased, why? It seems very clear. I hope I'm not missing something, but I'm afraid I don't see a problem with it and I don't think it should be rephrased.
    • I'll not push it if you feel it's clear, but it does seem slightly ambiguous to me. Perhaps "watches with sadness"? J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• "but kept the idea of an adventure with no guns, violence, and no antagonist – the only Tintin story to do so" This sentence doesn't quite work for me; there seems to be a curious tense switch. How about something like "such an adventure would be the first and only Tintin story without these features."
  • Ah! (I remember Crisco added this to get the DYK to work.) I'm very glad you pointed this one out. I believe you are right and wrestled for several minutes over this, and I think I've got it: "but kept the idea of an adventure with no guns and no violence. This would become the only Tintin story without an antagonist."
• Why "Psychological issues" rather than "Mental health"?
  • Because the prose says that after Hergé's mental breakdown he seeks a "psychoanalyst" and then it quotes Farr using the word "psycological". Let me know if you disagree.
• Is Ricklin notable? Worth redlinking.
  • As yes, those red links of yours! I set out to discover Ricklin's notability. Tell me what you think of this: A single online source says the following people formed the core of "the Zürich school of psychoanalysis": Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Eugen Bleuler, Ludwig Binswanger, "and others (e.g., Alphonse Maeder, Rev. Oskar Pfister, and Franz Ricklin)." So he's there, but definitely a lesser figure, almost but not quite entirely unheard of. I personally doubt there is enough documented information about him for a future article, and that "a student of Carl Jung" is everything we need to know about the man, so I don't want the red link. What do you think?
    • Now I've started looking, we actually already have an article, but under a different spelling of his name- see Franz Riklin. I'm not sure which spelling is accurate, but I have no doubt that he is notable. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • OMG (as they say)! Well, I am clearly wrong about Riklin's notability. And I am not the only one who is wrong: I just double-checked, and four prominent Tintinologists really are misspelling his name with a "ck". And that online source I found above misspelled it too. Finally, in Peeters' recent 2012 book, he spells it correctly (despite his incorrect spelling in 1989). I checked each online source referenced by the Riklin article you discovered. I have corrected the spelling in our article, and included the link, as you requested. I am so glad you found this! That's worth the price of your consultation right there!
• "Completing the book would exorcise the "white demons" that possessed him." Not a neutral claim- perhaps "For Hergé, completing..." or "Hergé felt that completing..."
  • Great observation. Done. ("He divorced his wife to marry Fanny and continued work on Tintin in Tibet, trusting that completing the book would exorcise the "white demons" that possessed him.")
    • I fear that you two have misunderstood the original sentence. What it claimed was that, in fact they did achieve that. "Would" is used rather than "did" because it's in the future at the time he makes the decision, but the sources actually claim that it worked. Mezigue (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • My problem is a neutrality one. Sources can say all they like that Hergé "exorcised" "white demons", but this is not the kind of claim that we should be making in Wikipedia's neutral, authoritative voice. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • You just shined the light on the problem with the Critical Analysis section; I get it now. The authors may have said it, and I may have liked how they said it, but I don't need to repeat it here, do I. Not if I can help the reader get the concept without it while maintaining a neutral tone. As for your original critique point: Did I fix the mention of the two quoted hyperbolic words by changing it to: "Hergé continued work on Tintin in Tibet, trusting that completing the book would exorcise the "white demons" that possessed him"?
• Superscript: "[22] [b]" but "[7][a]" (note the spacing). Check the others, too. Consistency needed!
  • Indeed it is always needed! Found two more spacing errors like it (the third had reversed the order of the number and the letter); done, done, and done.
• Be aware of MOS:LQ. It's possible someone will challenge you on this at FAC.
  • Okay. I was actually always aware of it and was always trying to get it right. Do you see a spot where I missed it? I will check the entire article for this.
• "reminding us that" Unclear. Are you saying that Thompson feels Tibet reminds us..., or are you saying that Thompson reminds us that 'Tibet...? If the latter, this feels non-neutral. Either way, rephrasing may be useful.
  • Okay, I see. It was the latter I was going for. Thompson wasn't really "reminding" us, I was just trying out a literary device other than the word "said", and I am dismayed that I crossed the line of neutrality. The phrase linking the two quotes is now: "pointing out that".
• I get the feeling that the analysis section is a little non-neutral. "Might not the icy, white expanses of Hergé's nightmares really have their analogue in his own hero?" Especially as "Tintin represents an unattainable goal of goodness, cleanness, authenticity."[49]" This reads like something from a flowery essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. Same with "Certainly, as Pierre Assouline concluded,". I also feel that there isn't actually much analysis in this section.
  • Yes, I sensed that the Critical Analysis section may be the weakest as I wrote it last and it has gone through the least amount of the writing/rewriting cycle. Your comments are helpful. I have not fixed this yet; I need some more time to go over it again. Perhaps you will have time to check after I fix it soon? Thank-you, I will let you know then.
• Sur les traces de Tintin will almost certainly be notable?
  • Agreed! Red link definitely required, now that you mention it! Done.

I've not taken a look at the sourcing/comprehensiveness or the images, but, from focussing on the prose, I feel the analysis section is perhaps the weakest part of the article. To be clear, I'm being very picky here- this seems like a decent GA, even if there may be places it could improve! J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are a tough reviewer; very reliably so; quite likely to spot the problems; exactly what I was hoping for! FYI, I believe I used the source material properly so it will be okay when they check it. Thank-you again!

Edit: I hope the non-free panel from the comic will go unchallenged. I love how it shows the "whiteness" discussed in the article. It also verifies the markings on the airplane. I noticed it survived one day when another panel from the comic was rightly cut from this article. This file is one of the few actual Tintin comic panels in Wikipedia. Prhartcom (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think File:Plane crash in Tintin (300x169).jpg is likely justified, but that the rationale could do with strengthening. The use of whiteness is important, as is the comparatively realistic style (that is, based on real photos of the Himalayas), and the use of the logo. I think the use of the logo alone is not enough. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear. Do you know how I can strengthen the rationale? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel the article's really starting to come together. I've made some more tweaks to the wording and strengthened the rationale a little. I am left feeling that a panel is a good addition, but that the aircraft one isn't the best. Is there perhaps a frame that captures the three following elements: 1) Extensive white; 2) The realistic, rocky mountain landscape; 3) The theme of "friendship"? Just a thought. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, especially as we really don't want anyone to have a good reason to remove this image. Allow me to put some thought into it as well. Thanks for the improvements you have made and for your encouraging words. I have been busy lately and have not been able to return to this work, but it is my intention to modify the Critical Analysis section. Once again thank-you for your top notch review. Prhartcom (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@J Milburn: J Milburn, just to let you know I finally had a moment to rewrite the second paragraph of the Critical Analysis section at bit, as you and I discussed. FYI also: An upstanding member of the Guild of Copy Editors is currently giving the article the once over. Prhartcom (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's great news. I'll certainly do what I can to take another look through the article, but I'm afraid I'm traveling tomorrow and will have a busy extended weekend with no internet access for at least some of it, so I may not be about much. J Milburn (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments prior to FAC

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Just a few comments that we might want to consider prior to sending this off for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for this review and for your improvements. Keep it coming. Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I am so happy to have two of the greatest Wikipedians I have ever met together with me again. Let's see if I can keep it together while in their presence.  ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I am surprised that we have been able to work together with so few problems on multiple projects - that's a rarity on Wikipedia! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rarity on Wikipedia, Midnightblueowl. Maybe for you. I work with other editors all the time. Prhartcom (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• In the lede, we state "The story tells of the young reporter Tintin, assisted by his friends, searching for Tintin's friend Chang Chong-Chen" but to me, that doesn't read terribly well. Could we change it to something a bit better ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It no longer says this; Curly Turkey fixed it a few hours before you wrote this. Does it read better now? Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It now states "The story tells of the young reporter Tintin in search of his friend Chang Chong-Chen, whom the authorities claim died in a plane crash in the mountains", which is an improvement for sure, but still not quite perfect to my eye. Perhaps replace "in search of" to "as he embarks on a search for" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my edits were in response to MBO's comments. I'd meant to copyedit the whole article, but then my daughter dragged me away to play store, and I fell asleep afterwards. I wasn't quite satisfied with what I did, either, and have been thinking on how to improve it. Lemme take another stab at it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• "the mysterious Yeti"... Do we really need "mysterious"; it doesn't feel very encyclopedic. Perhaps "cryptozoological" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not that word. I know exactly what you mean about using the word "mysterious", but I think a strong adjective is needed here purely for reasons of good writing (which is allowed). I believe it remains neutral and factual, but I may be proved wrong in FAC. I notice Curly Turkey edited around this sentence and left this word; giving his tacit approval. Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How about "legendary" ? Even "elusive" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Prhartcom already rejected an edit that changed it to "legendary". As he pointed out, in the context of the story, it's not merely a legend. It's been more than a decade since I've read the story, but I think "elusive" fits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It does; good word choice. (I think that was not me, but Midnightblueowl who pointed all that out, and she was right.) Prhartcom (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "only a few familiar characters were cast" - remember this is a comic book, not a film. Thus, claiming that characters were “cast” is a bit misleading. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and it no longer says this; Curly Turkey fixed it a few hours before. Is it better? Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• "inspired a museum exhibition" - should we be including the name of the museum ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the lead, not the body, where we do state the name. I thought the lead should be factual without getting bogged down in details. Shouldn't it hook the reader into reading the body of the article where the details are fully presented? Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prhartcom

• Regarding the last paragraph of Critial Analysis: I love the new Assouline addition and want to keep it! Can we also keep the bit he reported about "It's a story of friendship"? Because I like how it reads and I like how that phrase circles back nicely in the Awards section. Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that information in Assouline's biography and thought that it was an absolute must for this article! Hopefully I shall find some interesting stuff in Peeters' biography too. However, I have strong misgivings about including those "story of friendship" quotations from Hergé himself here; both these quotations, and the fact that Tintin in Tibet was Herge's favourite Tintin adventure are simply not "critical analysis", so I do not think that they belong in the "Critical Analysis" section, least of all thrown in at the end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Very exciting, good point, and to solve it I see you simply moved it to the top of the Reception! It looks good there. Prhartcom (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty repeptitious, though. It's "an ode to friendship" and "a story of friendship". I've had no luck rearranging it (my brain has little spare capacity this week); I'll try later if you don't do something first. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a tad repetitious, although I don't think that this is too much of a problem given that it simply underscores Herge's own views on the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the first paragraph of History: No, no. Hergé didn't just read an article and suddenly get the idea about Indians in America. He had wanted to return Tintin to America for two decades, and finally felt ready. I'm deleting that. As for the second sentence you added about the possible story in America, yes, that is factually true. Do we really need it though? I don't think so. The paragraph must get three discarded story ideas on the page and over with as efficiently as possible. You could try making part of that new sentence tacked on to the previous sentence. Let's just leave the new Assouline reference. Prhartcom (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going by what is stated in the Assouline biography here. Personally I think that the additional text reads well and is of interest to the reader, so I would rather that it stayed in, although I am open to further discussion and hearing third opinions on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I see Assouline said it "revived his youthful passion", referring to what I was talking about. It's the "Scouting days of his youth" that are important, not how he recalled them.

• I truly don't mean to ask you to add Assouline one minute and then tear you up for adding Assouline then next, so sorry that I appear to be doing that. It's just that we don't want to add anything just for the sake of adding it. If something new is going to be introduced to this article at this late stage, it had better be top drawer. Consider just adding Assouline 2009 and Peeters 2012 references to existing text instead, unless you find some Assouline or Peeters facts that are truly important. Prhartcom (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries Prhartcom, I get where you are coming from! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm so glad that you do; what a relief, and I believe you, Midnightblueowl. I'm so very pleased that you're here! Prhartcom (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My God, this article is really looking good. That moving finish to the Critical Analysis section hits the reader where it hurts. Now, there used to be so many things to do on this article that other editors and I needed a To Do list, but now I believe most everything is very nearly done. I still need to see about answering Curly Turkey's questions as they might lead to other improvements. I need to double-check every cited reference. Both of us need to scour the article for problems that we have forgotten to check for—this requires an ability to think like a Wikipedia:FAC reviewer—and to ensure this article absolutely meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(FYI to anyone: I like Barnstars.) Prhartcom (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

Note: I just want to say these are devastatingly good questions. They almost hurt while reading them. Let me see if I can come up with worthy answers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• published in book form, and considered a number of plot ideas for his next story: Did Hergé really wait until the album came out to start thinking of the next story? How long were the breaks between serializations? Did Tintin magazine often run without a Tintin serialization? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess I could've answered this myself by reading the article for The Red Sea Sharks. There was an 8½-month break between the two serials. It might be a good idea to say so—I doubt I'm the only one who would wonder. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I am looking for information in the sources about this and will follow up. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• as Farr noted, "Even The Castafiore Emerald has a culpable magpie.": This assumes the reader is familiar with Castafiore, and enough to make such a comparison. Some more context? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a little sceptical as to whether this note is necessary; any thoughts ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Consider that on a Talk page I saw a reader questioning the truth of the "only book without an antagonist" statement (which was a recent DYK), pointing out the lack of villain in the next book, which I recall Matty007 had to answer and point to this note as explanation. The reader had a fair objection and Farr's observation does preemptively answer it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Good point! On that point I agree it should stay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• the play he adapted for Hergé in the 1940s, M. Boullock A Disparu (The Disappearance of Mr Boullock): What's this? Can we get some context? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am looking for information in the sources about this and will follow up. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I found information on this play (Peeters 2012 pp.130–131). It was the second and last play written by Hergé and Melkebeke and it was staged for Christmas 1941. In it, Tintin travels to Shanghai, then to Lhassa, where he met some Tibetian monks, then to other places before he returns back to Brussels. A review appeared in Le Soir, which I read, that was tacitly supportive but betrayed what an ordinary show it was. By 1969, Hergé wrote, "There is nothing left of it in my files or even in my memory." What do you think? Prhartcom (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe redlink the play name ? In time, we might be able to produce an article on the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Although it was initially claimed that the title of Tintin in Tibet was chosen by market research suggesting that sales would be better if the book used Tintin's name in the title, "in reality," said Harry Thompson, "the title reflected the solo nature of [Tintin's] undertaking.": meaning Hergé intentionally put Tintin's name in the title to reflect the solo nature of his undertaking? Sounds unlikely. And can we get more on the claims that the title was chosen by market research? What a strange claim—it's not the first Tintin in XXX book. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I doubted the veracity of this statement from Thompson the moment I first read it (Note: This statement has been in the article for a long time). However, Thompson really did say this in his book exactly this way. If we admit it reads well here, then I suppose that means it's okay? Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, because it presents it as a fact without backing up that it was Hergé's intention. "In reality" doesn't necessarily literally mean "in reality" in the hands of a sloppy writer—it often just means "This is my take on XXX". Thompson appears to me to be expressing his interpretation with a poor choice of words. It's an interesting interpretation, and should be reported, but it shouldn't be reported as a fact unless it can be backed up that it really was Hergé's intention. I'd drop "in reality" and indicate the quote as Thompson's interpretation. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I understand now. I have made the necessary improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Fanny Vlaminck, a far younger woman who: do we know how many years younger? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder how necessary it is for us to state that she was younger ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, that fact is necessary, all right. It says it all, really. Germaine was nearly the same age as Hergé, born in 1906. Fanny was far younger, born nearly thirty years later, in 1934 (Peeters 2012 p.260).
      • This is why it's important to state how much younger she was. It she were three years younger, "younger woman" would be silly. At 28 years younger, there's no doubt that "younger woman" thing is significant. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I see what you mean now. I have removed the words "far younger woman" and replaced them with a factual number. Readers can decide for themselves if that is "far younger". Midnightblueowl has a good point as well. It shouldn't matter how much younger Fanny is. All that should matter is whether or not she and Hergé liked each other. So, we don't stress the fact either. But we also don't withhold any facts; we just present them and let readers decide all that for themselves. Prhartcom (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Though separated from her: separated, not divorced? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They separated at the time and would only divorce much later, I believe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Correct, they were divorced seventeen years later, in 1977. (Germaine did not take it well.) (Peeters 2012 p.328) ... I recall that this topic came up in a prior discussion (probably above). Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • This should be made explicit, as "separation" can take two meanings here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Easily. It has now been made explicit. Prhartcom (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• The idea of a solo voyage led to Tintin being accompanied only by Snowy and a reluctant Haddock: a solo voyage with two friends? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It says "accompanied only by", implying the bare minimum. Tintin set out alone and they accompanied him. I added they were also accompanied by "their guide". I think the message gets across and the point of Tintin looking for his friend while being practically alone is adequately made. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I doubt this kind of thing will get through FAC without someone else objecting. "Solo" normally means "alone", no? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Here is what the author says: Regarding the third discarded story idea involving Calculus: "The new adventure must be a solo voyage of redemption for Herge. Calculus could not go. Nor, for that matter, could any of the great cast of characters used in The Red Sea Sharks, not Wagg, not even the Thompsons. Only Tintin and Haddock would be allowed on this trip." (Thompson 1991 p.236). Prhartcom (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• and that the "migou" is also there: it's never explained what the "migou" was supposed to be. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest, this has been repeatedly pointed out to me, and I keep ignoring it. Specifically: Copy editors have changed it to this: "migou (the Yeti)" and I have repeatedly reverted them, intentionally keeping it ambiguous for two reasons: 1) It is mysterious. 2) It is obvious. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "Mysterious" is not a virtue in an encyclopaedia. "and the 'migou' is also there" jumps out with no context (so I doubt it's "obvious"). Is the word even that important? If it's supposed to be obvious the "migou" is the Yeti, then why not switch out "migou" for "Yeti" (thus avoiding ugly parentheses). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • All right. That's a simple solution; this is done. Prhartcom (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Hergé went on to research the cryptid as much as possible: "the cryptid" as in "the subject of cryptids", or as in "this particular crypticcryptid, the Yeti"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait, you're saying that "cryptic" is the correct singular? Let me check Wiktionary. (Pause.) No it isn't![1] This term is correct and is used in the proper way. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that was a typo. I'd meant that it wasn't clear whether "the cryptid" was referring to "this cryptid that appears i nthe story", or "the cryptid" in the sense of the species or whatever, à la "the lion is the king of the beasts". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Due to his desire for accuracy, Hergé added the logo of Air India to the crash debris: maybe "accuracy" would be appropriate in a reconstruction of an actual event; perhaps "verisimilitude" would be better? (I'm sure there's a better word with fewer syllables, but I can't think of one at the moment). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Too posh, no way. And starting with The Blue Lotus, Hergé's desire for accuracy was legendary. I see what you're getting at but unless you find a better one, I really do believe this is the right word. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Have I misunderstood with this edit? I assumed it was orignially published with the Air India logo, and then removed in the book. Have I assumed wrongly? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As is often the case, you assumed correctly, my friend. However, Air India had been cooperating with Hergé before this embarrassment took place, providing him with voluminous material for his research, hoping he would use their airline in his publication (he did, but they got a little more than they were hoping for). To clarify, they didn't start cooperating with him at the moment of this incident; they had already been cooperating before the incident and then at that moment felt betrayed. (It's funny, I know.) I like your new copy edit; I assume you agree the text is now clear. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• , dryly noting that there were so many Indian airlines it was possible that there really was a Sari-Airways.: This sounds more like smartassery than something really worth including in the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hergé was the smart ass, not me. We are documenting the fact that Hergé was a smart ass. He really did say this; it is documented in several places. (Remember, he had run into this kind of sensitive issue before.) Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You or I may be able to remember this, but if this were the first Tintin article the reader had read, it wouldn't be in the least bit obvious. This statement needs more context to make sense, but honestly I think it's too frivolous for the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• the governing Communist Party: I'm not familiar enough with the politics, but this is the Communist Party of China, isn't it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the one! I've added the correct link within the article itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • When I saw that my anarchist political expert friend Midnightblueowl had improved this sentence, I knew that now it was absolutely correct! Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • "Anarchist" ? Oh, far from it Prhartcom! ;p Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• state authorities renamed it Tintin in China's Tibet. When Hergé and his publishers protested, the authorities restored the book's original title: was it actually published under two different titles, or did Hergé et al manage to prevent the "China's Tibet" title from appearing? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Now you're just splitting hairs. I rechecked the source, which says, "When the book was published in Chinese, ... the Chinese authorities had renamed it ... When Hergé and his publishers protested, the Chinese backed down ... The book is now sold in China under its original name." I imagine that after their first print run (which was no doubt sold in Chinese bookstores anyway), the book was printed with the correct title. In response to a reader's question I once went looking for an image of the offending cover, with no success. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• I noticed one of you changed "he worked at Le Petit Vingtième" back to "the days of Le Petit Vingtième". The problem is that the reader should not be expected to know what the Le Petit Vingtième was or what Hergé's relation is to it. We. can't expect the reader to have read the other Tintin articles—especially if this one ends up on the Main Page. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is you went out on a limb and fell off. Didn't a warning bell go off in your head when you made that change? Zhang never worked at Le Petit, so you shouldn't say that he did. Zhang regularly assisted Hergé with his work at the newspaper—on weekends. I had changed it back and added the Note (discussed in your next point below). But I see what you are saying; it is a good observation, so I have rewritten the passage omitting the name of the newspaper. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, "he" was supposed to refer to Hergé, but if it doesn't parse that way, then it'll have to be recast some other way—"the days of Le Petit Vingtième" comes out of nowhere and will leave an uninformed reader scratching their head. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed; like I said, I have rewritten the passage, now there is no mention of Le Petit Vingtième. Prhartcom (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Hergé and Zhang used to spend every Sunday together, during which Hergé learned much from Zhang about about Chinese culture for Le Petit Vingtième. I'd prefer to see this in the body rather than an endnote, especially since we read of the two reuniting in 1981. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All right, that is a good idea. I have done so, hopefully rectifying the problem you mention immediately above. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to see it without repeating "about" ("about about"), but that's just me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Without sufficient redundancy we will not be able to ensure the fault tolerance of our data. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Ha. Ha. I clicked "Thank" on Crisco's edit and have fixed this; thanks again for pointing it out. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• ''[[Tintin and I|Tintin et moi]]'' (2003), a documentary: if there's an English title, why prefer the French one? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Excellent point, as this breaks the "Rule of Least Astonishment" for wikilinks. I have fixed it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• While writing the story,: literally "writing"? Did Hergé use scripts (rather than, say, storyboards or thumbnails)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There goes Midnightblueowl again, in her usual amazingly impressive flurry of productivity, getting 99% of it right on the first try and getting an entire word wrong. Perhaps you would care to do the honours, my dear Midnightblueowl? By the way, we twice refer to Herge as an "author". Perhaps "artist" instead, right? Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, "artist" isn't right, either. "Author" might be acceptable—I'm not sure it strongly implies writing text. Do your sources give a breakdown of the workflow of the Studios? I imagine in the early serials Hergé would "write" by drawing the strip, but with a studio, I have to wonder. For instance, Harvey Kurtzman didn't write scripts for his artists—he gave them thumbnailed pages to work from. I don't know how much of the finished artwork was his, but I imagine Hergé would have done something similar. If you can't find this info, maybe "While developing the story" would be better? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I like that much better; this is done. I left "author". Prhartcom (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I seemed to miss this question! Looks like it has been resolved satisfactorily though. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Is there any sales information? It sounds like something that would be reported somewhere. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How does one find that out? I'm curious also. I have briefly looked and so far only have Donald Lopez, professor of Buddhist and Tibetan studies, guessing the volume is the "largest selling book about Tibet." I will keep checking the sources. Prhartcom (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I found only an unreliable webpage on Tintinologist.org from 2005, which suggests the number of Tintin books sold worldwide is one to three million per year. Prhartcom (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I've not come across any such information in my copious reading of Anglophone sources. It is always possible, of course, that such information exists within the much larger Francophone literature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, well, well—not what I was looking for, but "Tintin au Tibet exemplaires" turned up this, with an image of the cover of the original Chinese version with 在中国 (loosely "China's") before the "Tibet". Originally from Belga (news agency), so (I believe) would count as a RS. Sez 10,000 copies were printed before Chinese Children Publishing House agreed to restore the original title. Funny thing is, it also sez there were 10,000 copies printed of every other album (except Soviets and Congo, which were never published). If Tibet was reprinted, that means it would've outsold all the other volumes in China (of course, saying so would by OR or SYNTHESIS or somesuch). It also says there was a previous Chinese-language edition published out of Taiwan for the Chinese diaspora—the edition talked about in the WP article is for the first mainland China edition. It also says there was a Tibetan edition published in 1994 for an exhibition called "Au Tibet avec Tintin". It was translated by a Tibetan monk in Antwerp, and distribution was limited to Europe. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Also, it says that Etienne Pollet of Casterman was informed "today" (in 2001) of the change, so obviously Hergé couldn't have be one of those insisting. BBC reports "When Herge and his publishers protested", but that obviously has to be a fudge (they don't give a date for it, either. When was this book published?) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • This source says Tibet had had sold plusieurs centaines de milliers d'exemplaires ("many hundreds of thousands of copies") by 1961, when Asterix the Gaul came out. Obviously someone's keeping count. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Probably want to add this to Soviets—the first edition was of 5,000 copies. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Total 12,000,000 copies sold as of 1968 of all of Hergé's albums (including non-Tintin). Unfortunately no breakdown. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • 1,000,000 copies a year from 1956? Sales must have dropped precipitously in the '60s if there were only 12,000,000 copies in print by 1968! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • The fr.wp article says the PRC album was published in 2001. No source given. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
          • It says "The Title Will Be Corrected" (italics mine)... dated 23 May 2001 ... attributed to Belga ... web host is www.wiedenhof.nl; don't know it ... I imagine this is a carefully re-posted news article, on a personal website. So is it a reliable source? I wonder ... is it a Tertiary source? If so, it couldn't it be added to the Bibliography? ... Need to verify the date that this happened ... need to find another source verifying the date as May 2001 ... Prhartcom (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I doubt we could use the actual URL as a source, but after hunting around it's clear that it couldn't possibly have happened while Hergé was alive—that's a pretty big deal. The best thing would be to find a Belgian who could perhaps access the original. Know one? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
              • I do. Brigade Piron! Prhartcom (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
                • You called? I'm not quite sure what the issue is here, so forgive me if I'm living up to the rather slow stereotype. "Belga" is a news agency, the equivalent of AP or Reuters if that's what you're wondering.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • Ha, we're okay here now; I just couldn't resist name-dropping my favourite Belgian editor after Curly Turkey provided the perfect set-up (before he solved this problem with a bit of brilliant research). Prhartcom (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
            • ... or, we could hunt around a bit more and turn up something from a publication such as Le Soir. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Brilliant; that's it! It is fixed now. Prhartcom (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Curly Turkey, I meant to formally ask: Are there any unresolved issues from this section? Prhartcom (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
                • I've left another couple reponses above. Also, I'd explicitly state when the last serial finished, so readers realize there was a substantial gap between the two. There's a caption: "Hergé used pictures of the Tibetan landscape from magazines as inspiration for his drawings." This caption seems to indicate that the image it's attached to was on eof the images Hergé used. If it's not, that should be made explicit. You might want to consider some other French sources as well: "Tintin entre pierre et neige", for example. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • Curly Turkey and Midnightblueowl, could you please check my latest additions to the article, as I have made additional improvements and tried to answer much of what Curly Turkey suggests above. (I suggest looking at all my changes made in August.) I have clarified that "the cryptid" is referring to the species (and not a single cryptid), as suggested. I have clarified when the last serial finished, as suggested (and included more dates and present one fact in better order). I have rewritten the caption for the issue mentioned above, as suggested. I have added a statement (consistent with other Tintin book articles) that touches on quantity of sales, as suggested. I will not add any additional sources, French or otherwise, at this late stage (I like the journal article Curly Turky found, but notice by its bibliography that it was written from many of the same sources as we have drawn from anyway). As for Sari-Airways, I can't see the problem. Peeters (1989) and Farr (2001) write about this event (drawn from Entrtiens avec Hergé by Numa Sadoul, 1983) and the point, if it is not clear, is that Hergé is stating that despite his attempt to avoid offending an airline, he may still be offending an airline. Let me know if that fact is not coming through and needs to be clarified. I'm not deleting it because I believe it is funny in an otherwise semi-dark article. Thanks for your assistance! Prhartcom (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... it is a featured article --174.48.2.252 (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• You don't need to contest vandalism—just revert. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy writing

I noticed some pretty slack writing in this article and tried to clean it up a little. I see my changes have been reverted. Do we need a third opinion or would a review be the next port of call? --John (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

John is referring to the following: "However, Tintin spots a scarf on a cliff face..." (he didn't like the word "however"), "and continues on with only the Captain..." (he didn't like the word "on"), "However, Hergé came to believe that retracing old ground..." (he didn't like the word "however"), "His Catholic upbringing and Boy Scout ethic, however, caused him to feel tremendous guilt..." (he didn't like the word "however"), "Even the creature's care for the starving Chang..." (he didn't like the word "even"). I reverted those five edits. I count eleven other small changes in his edits that he made that I agree with and kept (the last one just now), which he doesn't mention above. I had already been to his Talk page to admit I reverted him, and he replied, before he came here and wrote this. I think this is an overreaction, John. Prhartcom (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's right, Prhartcom. It isn't so much that I "don't like" those extra words, it is more a case of you having to justify them. So what do the two "however"s add? What does "continues on" tell us that "continues" doesn't? --John (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to tell you. The adverb "however" is used three times as a conjunctive, meaning a counterpoint to a previous sentence or phrase. Think of it as a pivot, something which balances and connect two things. Therefore, in the Synopsis, one character wanted to turn back and Tintin agreed, but then he pivoted when he spotted something. Hergé was determined to set his new story in America, but then he turned and changed his mind. He also passionately wanted to divorce his wife, but equally passionately felt he couldn't do so. In each case, without the conjunctive, the two points just lie there, but the "however" joins them together in a offsetting, balancing way, and I deliberately used the word this way each time. The adverb "on" I also deliberately used four times in the Synopsis following a verb of forward motion, when describing how the characters are driving forward, always forward. My intention is to make the reader feel the character's need to keep moving. Thus, they force themselves to "go on", "continue on", "travel on", and "trek on[ward]", ever onward, until they finally reach their destination. The adverb "even" is used once deliberately in a group of two sentences when presenting the second sentence, making it stand out from the other. It is used in the spirit of "even as", "even if", or "even so". Here, the second point is being made "even" if the first is not, giving it more emphasis.

I hope my explanation was helpful to you and that you see now why the words were used in each case. I know that you only wish to improve the article and I thank you for that, as I especially thank you for the improvements you made that were helpful. Prhartcom (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to explain these. I find I care less about the "however"s (though three is pushing it; remember "brilliant prose" is the standard we are aiming for here) than I do about the "continue on". To me, that is just bad writing. To continue means to carry on, to keep on going. "Continue on" is almost at the level of "irregardless". "Even" is in between in the egregious stakes; it's just an extra word, perhaps thrown in there for poetic effect, but in an encyclopaedia we don't need that. We just tell the story, simply and clearly. --John (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

John, I am well aware of the FA criteria, no need for you to remind me of it, as I just brought this article to FA after months of editing and review. I don't know what's worse today, the constant vandalism or you. Could you please consider moving on somewhere else. (And it's "encyclopedia".) Prhartcom (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, and generally speaking, well done. I am sure that you won't need reminded that we do not own the work we do here, and that TFA in particular is up for scrutiny and improvements. Reverting the work of others (even partially, as you point out) is almost bound to lead to discussion; we even have an essay on the process. You didn't need to do that, you know. Now, I've heard your opinion; what about some others? --John (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As one of the co-nominators of this article at the FA level, I can attest to the fact that it has already been thoroughly scrutinised and copy edited by a variety of native-speaking editors. Thus, I am confident that the prose is in good shape, and I would disagree with the assertion that it constitutes "sloppy writing". Admittedly, there are clearly (small and somewhat trivial) instances of wording that are contentious, and which divide opinion on whether they are necessary or not. On a personal level, I am happy with the prose as it stands, but I am also happy to see a third opinion brought in here, ideally from someone with no prior connection to either this page or either editor. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have removed the single word "on" from the Synopsis that was under discussion. I believe we're done here. Prhartcom (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Just the three "however"s and the "even" to go and we are, as you say, "done". --John (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)