Talk:Tintin (character)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Will take a look at this one over the next couple days, mille millions de sabords! —Kusma (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kusma, and thank-you for committing to this review! I am honored and I look forward to this!

I remember that I deleted and re-wrote this article a few years ago, nominated it for FA (see the Talk page), then ended up withdrawing that nomination. Years have passed since then. I happened to edit the article recently, and wondered why I had never before submitted it to GA. So here it is. I agree with you; this is an exciting subject.  :-) Prhartcom (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Progress box

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

General comments

Happy to see this at GAN. Lots of things I did not know despite reading Tintin for more than 30 years. I'll probably review this in too much detail, and will make comments that are not strictly related to the GA criteria. Please feel free to tell me you won't action these.

• One such optional comment: An "adaptation" that I am aware of that you do not mention is Frederic Tuten's novel Tintin in the New World. I think it's a notable adaptation but I also don't want this to turn into a "In popular culture" section so do with this information what you want. (At FA level, I might insist for "comprehensiveness").

I am grateful for this information; I did not know of the adaptation and will add it! I agree this is a good heads-up for FA comprehensiveness. Prhartcom (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Images seem fine from a licensing point of view (fair use rationales are ok). An image of Hergé might be a good addition, but neither File:Hergé, Premier plan, 1962, Radio-Canada, 6.jpg or File:Galerie de Traitres - Hergé2.JPG are convincingly licensed :(

More to come over the next days. —Kusma (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this. Prhartcom (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• OK, some global comments on the criteria that are not passes yet. There are some 1a (prose) issues detailed below, but they are not major. Slightly more concerning is 2d (close paraphrasing and unmarked near quotes that would probably be better in your own words). I'm not sure this meets the "broadness"/"focus" pair, 3a/3b. The stories are just hinted at (mostly in the "Occupation" section) and many are not even mentioned, especially the later ones (Flight 714, Calculus Affair, Picaros) where the world built by Hergé has settled so much that there is enough semblance of continuity between albums to almost constitutes a fictional biography. The list of film/TV adaptations is perhaps overly detailed in comparison. For 4, neutrality, we have lots of attributed praise but a far less developed controversy section that doesn't completely address the topic. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Content and prose review

Going section by section, will do the lead section last.

• Influences: Lots of excellent and well cited content here, but I think the presentation could be improved. We have early drawings / brother / Tintin-Lutin (1890s) / real life traveling boy scouts and journalists (1928) ending with "Hergé = Tintin" / Hergé's own youth as a boy scout and Totor / American comics and conclusion. This probably needs to be disentangled a bit. What would make more sense to me is
  • Hergé's own life experiences (brother and boy scouts)
  • Totor
  • Real life models (Kessel, Huld, Sexé); how sure are we that all of them definitely were models? Is this the consensus of all sources or do different sources give different role models? If not consensus, perhaps attribute better who says what?

There is evidence each of them influenced Hergé to create Tintin. For example, The Independent says this about Sexe: "Tintinologists have concluded that Hergé almost certainly closely followed the accounts of Sexe's adventures because they were published extensively in Belgian newspapers." But they don't say who the Tintinoligists are. I don't believe I have encountered his name in the other sources. I do not think there is consensus. I added a new citation for Sexe; author Jean-Paul Schulz. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved up the paragraph about Hergé's Totor next to the paragraph of Hergé's brother, followed by the paragraphs of literary models and real-life models, ending with "Tintin c'est moi." Let me know if it is disentangled. Prhartcom (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Flows much better. Some of the literary influences and the journalists could do with slightly more commentary. (It isn't totally clear whether Leroux and Priollet are typically considered important sources or whether this is some fringe speculation). —Kusma (talk)

• Literary influences (Tintin-Lutin? (you could link with {{ill|Tintin-Lutin|fr}} to produce Tintin-Lutin), possibly some of the "proto-Tintins" mentioned by Lofficier p. 32)

Done. And thank-you for Tintin, le petit Parisien; that is a good find. Prhartcom (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Summary including Hergé's self-identification with Tintin could help to give more closure to the section.

See above; I hope the order is better now. You're right that "Tintin c'est moi" is a good section close; hopefully having that additional paragraph helps lead into the next sections; let me know what you think. Prhartcom (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A fine choice. —Kusma (talk)

• The start of the section makes me wonder what exactly Assouline regards as the prehistory, as he isn't cited again in most of the section.

Assouline is repeatedly cited. What he meant by that is he spotted a sketch of character that looks like Tintin in the Totor adventures; I don't believe we need to mention that. The sentence was added to the start of this section simply to give it a good introduction. Let me know if you think more work is needed. Prhartcom (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Degrelle certainly was important at least as Hergé's source of American comics. Degrelle additionally claimed to have been an inspiration for the character; I'm not sure fr:Tintin mon copain deserves a lot of space here (or at all), but a list of all potential sources may need to feature him more prominently. In the footnote [b], perhaps sort Degrelle's positions by time: he was just a journalist at the time, and later became Rexist leader and even later protegé of Hitler. (Incidentally I GA reviewed Léon Degrelle last year).

Degrelle's act of providing American comics to Hergé is his sole contribution to Tintin. (Likely Hergé would soon discover American comics some other way.) That is why he is not really an influence and deserves no more than this footnote. Yes; all who have heard Degrelle's claim know this is not true. I notice it is not mentioned in the Degrelle article, as it should not be. But the Tintin mon copain link is excellent; I did not know about it; thank-you for that! And I have sorted Degrelle's positions by time. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? That's awesome! I just checked it—this has greatly improved since I read it while doing the Tintin articles. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• "discovered the joys of Scouting" is a bit unencyclopedic language, perhaps simplify to "became a boy scout" or similar.

OK. done. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• the linking of "slang term" to boche (slur) is a bit MOS:EGGy, I would prefer to link {{lang|fr|[[Boche (slur)|Boches]]}}

I propose that we link to the English Wikipedia when we can. It helps the reader more when they can actually read the information at the link. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but this is a link to the English Wikipedia, just properly packed in a {{lang}} template for the benefit of screenreaders: Boches. —Kusma (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, understood; I was thinking it was to the French Wikipedia. Fix it if I didn't do it right. Prhartcom (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it worked. —Kusma (talk)

• Early development: what was Hergé's job? Incidentally, you could mention somewhere that this is a pseudonym.

Done; Hergé's job definitely needed to be mentioned; thank-you for observing that. Regarding the pseudonym, okay, good idea, I changed my mind and mentioned it in the first sentence as a footnote. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the edition of... of... repetitive

Done; thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• A reader unfamiliar with Tintin in the Land of the Soviets might appreciate a sentence telling us Tintin is a reporter for the Vingtième Siècle repeating a lot of anti-communist propaganda.

I thought about it, but decided not to mention any of that to avoid going off-track. We mention that Tintin is a reporter, and elsewhere appropriately mention the real newspaper. The Soviets article mentions the anti-communist propaganda. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Peeters deemed... Ultimately, he deemed repetitive.

Done; I see what you mean. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Description: The "iconic visual icon" feels a bit out of place, more so as the top image is one of Tintin walking.

I don't agree (I apologize). This fact opens Lofficier's book the way it opens this section. It is a sentence of Tintin's description, opening the Description section, which is followed by more description detail. However, you make me realize the top image should be this image, of Tintin running with Snowy. I will work on providing that. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• "familiar plus fours" and "famous quiff" slightly unencyclopedic tone. BTW anything about changing to the blue sweater?

Well, the plus fours are familiar and the quiff is famous, very very famous. I know what you mean about being careful to avoid an unencyclopedic tone while also being careful to avoid boring writing, so I dropped the word "familiar" and it did not lose anything (I tried to drop the word "famous" but it did lose something). Let me know if you don't agree. No, I haven't found any of the books mention the blue sweater. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the blue sweater is from the Rackham/Unicorn times. source I'm happy with the quiff, but I'd argue that the blue sweater outfit is even more iconic than the previous one. —Kusma (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Occupation: But aside from a few examples, Tintin is never actually seen consulting with his editor or delivering a story. "A few examples" doesn't go so well with "never" imho.

You're right. I think I fixed it with a single word "these" examples. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• making it in his role of explorer copyedit

I see what you mean; I changed it to "making news". I hope its okay. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Skills and abilities: first two sentences more or less say the same thing twice.

You're right. I cut saying it in the first sentence so that it would only be in the second sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Personality: Is there any indication which Adventures are the "early Adventures"? (I'd guess Soviets, Congo, America, but that's OR).

Yes, Lofficier lists those three, then on p. 30 says Cigars is the "last of the early works". I don't say that in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Tintin's iconic representation enhances this aspect, with comics expert Scott McCloud noting that the combination of Tintin's iconic, neutral personality ... Repetition of "iconic". Tense: here you use present tense for what the experts say. Most of the rest of the article uses past tense. I think present tense is the better choice, but mixing is suboptimal.

You are very right about tense; I was mixing it all over the place. I think I fixed it now; please check. I dropped the first "iconic". Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• The reporter does have vices Is this also sourced to Farr p. 21?

Yes indeed it is. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• too much of the goody-goody about him, at least he was not priggish a bit close paraphrasing, and not entirely encyclopedic in tone

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is this sense of humour that makes the appeal of Tintin truly international. The source is more directly mentioning Hergé's sense of humour here, and the sentence is also a bit too closely paraphrased.

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you, Kusma. I hope to work on the article this weekend. Prhartcom (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to finish the review by then! —Kusma (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reception: This starts off mostly about the books and is a bit thin on reception of the character. There should be more to say about him (number one European comics character of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, and still huge after Spirou and Asterix became popular). When did he become internationally popular (I think the Dutch translations are super early, and would expect the pre-WW2 popularity to be restricted to Belgium/France/Netherlands. But I could be wrong!)

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Literary criticism: literally nothing before Hergé's death?

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Controversy: This is more "changes to Tintin in the Congo" than an actual controversy. Did anyone criticise Tintin or Hergé? Who? When? How? (As an aside, the stereotypes and brutality in Soviets are at least as bad as those in Congo but it seems people don't object so much when it goes against communists). Was Tintin untouched by the controversies around Hergé, who was arrested as a collaborator after the liberation of Belgium? (see Hergé#Post-war_controversy:_1944–1946)

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Legacy: This section starts off with things that might belong in "Personality". The rest is basically a long Thompson quote. We don't get anything about the massive merchandising empire built on Tintin.

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Murals: I'm a bit confused whether these are murals of The Adventures of Tintin or of Tintin himself. And unconvinced by this list in general.

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Adaptations: The section seems mostly about which actors played Tintin, and says very little about the adaptations themselves. Not sure the publicity stunts are really "adaptations"; the Lucien Pepermans story certainly would also fit into "reception". Is there anything to say about Dendoncker and the others playing the returning Tintin (some of the note could be incorporated into the text)? Is this after the serialised publication and before the books appeared?

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Should we learn a bit more about the plays? The Mystery of the Blue Diamond says it was co-written by Hergé.

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Adventures of Tintin (TV series) is not "Canadian" but also French. Can't see the relevance of HBO and Nickelodeon if you don't even mention France 3, and if you list only one of the many voice actors without mentioning the language, one could reasonably expect the French one (as the most original one), not the English one.

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Shortly before Hergé's death in 1983, he came to admire the work of Steven Spielberg; who he felt was the only director who could successfully bring his Tintin to the big screen. Did Hergé consider the 1960s films to be failures?

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• What about the musicals and video games?

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think overall, the Adaptations section might be better off as a summary to List of Tintin media with a prominent link. Or you could consider turning it into a "List of actors who played Tintin". It's not clear why you have a complete filmography (including even the SGM short) here while ignoring other media.

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• The notes about Pepermans and Dendoncker are mostly trivia. Some of the other notes could be incorporated into the main text.

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Lead section: a bit short, not an adequate summary for the article.

Pending. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• "15 to 19 years" may be what Hergé said, but the lower end of this range doesn't make much sense for some of the stories and may be a bit misleading.

Tintin's age mention in this article has always been of some editing controversy (even quite recently); everyone wants to contribute their own WP:OR (as you can see). Of course we are going to do according to what is stated in the source. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• even featured in a 2011 Hollywood film is this so surprising that you need to say "even"? The pipe on "film" is a bit against MOS:EGG, why not give the full title? If you mention so many adaptations in the body of the article, you should give a short summary in the lead.

Done; you are right; I hope this is better. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is the de Gaulle quote really worth to be in the lead section?

Absolutely yes. General de Gaulle was certainly the most visible person on the world stage to mention Tintin. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's all for now, will put this on hold, happy to check on any improvements. —Kusma (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a good, thorough review, thank-you Kusma! I honestly did not expect a review so quickly. I am still working on it and will do more next weekend. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Take your time! I'm happy to wait for further improvements. —Kusma (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a good review. It is inspiring. I have all my Tintin sources from my library out all over my desk. RL is pervasive. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Prhartcom, any news? —Kusma (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Prhartcom, it's been ten days since your last edit. I would like not to keep this review open much longer, as I am starting to forget what I thought about the article a month ago. Can you finish this soonish or should we close the review for now and you renominate when you're through with everything? —Kusma (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this; yes, you are right. I will not be out of town again this weekend so I promise to do more work and maybe finish then. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Still quite a way to go, please do try and finish. —Kusma (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Prhartcom: Looks like you have stopped working on this. Let us close this now; once you (or someone else) works through the remaining points I am sure the article will have an easy review next time round. —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)