Talk:Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tintin in the Land of the Soviets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Qrsdogg (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Beginning a review of the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• No dabs and links look fine. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

7. Overall: Excellent article, looks to me like it easily passes. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Evany

Should the (minor but real) role of Evany (Eugène van Nyverseel) be included? He was Hergé's first collaborator, working with him from the start of Soviets on. According to Goddin ("Lignes de Vie", 2008), he did some very minor work on the Soviets, and took over some of the other work of Hergé (like Totor) to free him to work more fully on Tintin (see also Peeters on him). Fram (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucien

I have my doubts about the name of Lucien Peppermans - it is most unusal as a name, whereas Pepermans is quite common. Also, several sources have the Pepermans spelling. For one example, which looks like having some authority, see http://www.objectiftintin.com/whatsnew_Tintin_1103.lasso

Besides, earlier versions of this article do show the Pepermans spelling. I am however not an authority on the matter, nor do I have access to authorative dococuments. Who can confirm or correct? Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Jan; Midnightblueowl or I will check into it and get back to you. —Prhartcom (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's Pepermans, see e.g. [1]. Peppermans would indeed be quite unusual, it looks as if some Anglophone "corrected" it. Names are always tricky, yesterday I had to correct "Puosette" to "Poussette" on the main Adventures of Tintin article, also a FA. 19:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the Benoît Peeters biography (as translated by Tina A. Kover), it's Peppermans, with the double-p. This of course contrasts with the Pepermans of the Pierre Assouline biography (as translated by Charles Ruas). Given the arguments presented here, I am happy too see Pepermans used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"He later came to regret the poorly researched, propagandist debut story, and prevented its republication until 1973" ?

Is there a source for this statement?

Other of his early cartoons were (re)published after having been re-researched/redrawn (into his more commonly known style) so why would he wait 40 years to republish it not-redrawn/re-researched if he at the same time regretted the original story for its poor quality?

I think the statement needs a proper source in order to remain. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It is contradicted by Hergé, son of Tintin by the usually well-informed Benoit Peeters, who blames the lack of reedition mainly on technical reasons (the original pages apparently were not available to Hergé?) and reluctance at Casterman, while Hergé wanted to republish it (original version or redrawn) long before 1973 or before the pirate version started to appear. So, if this source is correct, it was Casterman that prevented its republication until 1973, not Hergé! Lofficier though basically agrees with the version now in the article, i.e. that it was Hergé who choose not to republish it. Thompson as well agrees with the version of the article. Fram (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. On reflection I also take issue with the unsourced word 'propagandist'. Hergé paints a critical view of several places that Tintin visits, e.g. the native Americans driven away from their homes by US soldiers with bayonets, or the by today's standards out-right racist description of the natives in Congo. These albums are to my knowledge not described with the dismissive word 'propagandist'. So I think that word would also have to be sourced (inline) in order to remain.

You seem to know the relevant sources well, would you consider proposing a new and sourced formulation that you would consider an improvement, or perhaps simply boldly making it? Thanks again. Lklundin (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The russian propaganda and marxist whitewashing is very strong in this article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tintin in the Land of the Soviets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Fo7fBpiz?url=http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/nmcrp/tintin's-adventure-with-frank-gardner to http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/nmcrp/tintin%27s-adventure-with-frank-gardner

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Pepermans' arrival at Gare du Nord

The article currently reads, "Pepermans...arrived at Brussels' Gare du Nord railway station...accompanied by a white dog; in later life Hergé erroneously claimed that he had accompanied Pepermans. They were greeted by a crowd of fans, who mobbed Pepermans and pulled him into their midst."

When the article says "They were greeted by a crowd of fans", does it means Pepermans and the dog? Or Pepermans and...who?

Furthermore, are we quite sure that Hergé was mistaken about having accompanied Pepermans to the station? I'm looking at the Little, Brown, and Company edition of Tintin in America, which includes notes in the back of the book, not only about in America, but also about in the Land of the Soviets. LB&C claims that Hergé did indeed accompany Pepermans and even includes a photo showing the two arriving at Gare du Nord together in 1930. I suppose it's hypothetically possible that the photo is mislabeled, but that seems unlikely.

Currently, this Wiki article uses three sources - Goddin, Peeters, and a Romanian-language source from a website called Filme Cărţi - for the entire paragraph about Pepermans. And all three sources are given together at the end of the paragraph, making it unclear which information comes from which source. I don't read Romanian, nor do I have access to the sources by Goddin and Peeters, so I'll need help in determining how to resolve this issue. Is anyone able to report on what those three sources say about the matter? --Jpcase (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked in my edition of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets hoping to find something but there was no additional text at all. Carptrash (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: @Midnightblueowl: and @Prhartcom: - do any of you have access to the sources by Goddin and Peeters? --Jpcase (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I do. Will take a look and amend the article prose as appropriate. Thanks, Jpcase. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Thanks for looking into this! I have two lingering questions though. First, do we have any idea what Julien De Proft looks like? As noted above, the LB&C edition of Tintin in America includes an actual photograph of Pepermans arriving at the train station in 1930, accompanied by a man whom the book identifies as Hergé. It's not the clearest photo, and I'm not the best with faces, but I would say that the man accompanying Pepermans in the photo does, at the very least, look like Hergé...whether or not it's actually him. So unless De Proft bore a strong resemblance to Hergé, it may be that Goddin and Peeters are mistaken about this. Which brings me to my second question - do Goddin and Peeters explain why they believe that it was De Proft who accompanied Pepermans, and not Hergé? Or do they simply assert that Hergé misremembered the event, without providing any evidence for that assertion? Is it possible that both Hergé and De Proft accompanied Pepermans to the event? Thanks again for helping out with this! --Jpcase (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Petit Vingtième published a photo of "Tintin" in front of the station, with Julien de Proft to one side and Hergé to the other side (page 8, second photo). This picture is reproduced in "Lignes de Vie" ("Levenslijnen", the Philippe Goddin biography of Hergé, I use the Dutch version) on page 141. On page 142 Goddin says "Hergé sneakily takes the train to Leuven, together with Lucien [Pepermans]" They then travel to Brussels. So it seems clear that it was Hergé who accompanied Tintin. The same page also indicates that inside the station only some notables were allowed, including Empress Zita and her children, but that Hergé had little time for them as he wanted to go to the thousands of young readers outside the station! Fram (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Shoot - sorry that I've let this get away from me for so long. Midnightblueowl and Fram, I'm aware that you're both probably busy with other things, but since we're dealing with an FA article, it's probably worth addressing this sooner rather than later. Based on what Fram is saying, it sounds like both de Proft and Hergé accompanied Pepermans - but I'm still curious about the assertion that Hergé misremembered the incident. It seems like whoever made this assertion may have been mistaken themselves, and that Hergé may have remembered the incident correctly after all. So it would be good to specifically know who suggested that Hergé wasn't present at the event - was it Goddin? Peters? Both? I would dig into this myself, but don't have access to the relevant sources. I'll go ahead and ping @Curly Turkey: and @Prhartcom: as well, in case either of you have anything to add. Hopefully this can be a quick fix. --Jpcase (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If there's doubt about the veracity of any statement in the article, it might be best just to leave it out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's an option - but it would be nice to reflect the full scope of what's been said about this. --Jpcase (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd still love to try resolving this, if possible. To recap, the article currently says, Hergé erroneously claimed that he had accompanied Pepermans [to Brussels' Gare du Nord railway station], whereas it had been Julien De Proft. This statement is sourced with both The Art of Hergé, Inventor of Tintin: Volume I, 1907–1937, by Goddin, and Hergé: Son of Tintin, by Peeters. And yet, we have photos showing Hergé and Pepermans together at what is supposedly Gare du Nord. I'd happily address this issue myself, except that I don't have access to any of the sources. Fram, Midnightblueowl, if either of you have these books on hand, do you think you'd be able to check on what they say about Hergé misremembering this incident? The information should be found on page 67 of Goddin's book and pages 39-40 of Peeters' book. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jpcase, sorry for the delay on this. Have looked at the sources and they say the following:

• "Lucien Peppermans, fifteen, had the perfectly round head they were looking for, even if Herge thought it a bit large. But his hair was too long they had to send him to the barber twice.[…] Contrary to what Herge said later (no doubt in a characteristic attempt at simplification), it was not he who accompanied his Tintin on the express train from Cologne, but rather Julien De Proft who rode with the teenager... After having listened to a little welcoming speech he climbed into a Buick convertible and rode up the Boulevard Botanique to the offices of Le Vingtieme Siecle, where he would give the little speech Herge had written for him." - Peeters, pp. 39–40
• "At the office of Le Vingtieme Siecle] Tintin [i.e. Peppermans] and Herge appeared on the balcony, the reporter was called on to make an impromptu speech followed by a distribution of presents". - Goddin, p. 67

So if I understand these sources correctly, it was De Proft who accompanied Peppermans to the station, and that from there they travelled to the newspaper office, where Peppermans appeared with Herge. It is possible that Herge met Peppermans at the station (where a photo may have been taken), but Peeters rules out the idea that they actually travelled together on the train. The other possible alternative here is that the image you refer to (which I haven't seen, or at least not recently) was not taken at the culmination of the serialisation of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, but rather at the culmination of its successor, Tintin in the Congo, when—if I recall correctly—a similar stunt was organised by the newspaper. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Thanks so much for looking into this! So to synthesize everything - the "Publication" section of this Wikipedia article currently says that Pepermans arrived at Gare du Nord aboard the Liège express from Moscow; Lignes de Vie, by Goddin, claims that Hergé and Pepermans took the train to Leuven together - it also has a photo of Hergé, Pepermans, and de Proft all together in front a train station, although I'm not sure whether the photo shows them at the Leuven station or the Gare du Nord station - maybe Fram could check on this; LB&C has a photo of Hergé and Pepermans together at Gare du Nord; Peeters claims that de Proft rode with Pepermans on the express train from Cologne, after which Pepermans rode in a car to the offices of Le Vingtieme Siecle; and The Art of Hergé, Inventor of Tintin: Volume I, 1907–1937, by Goddin, claims that Hergé and Pepermans appeared together at the offices of Le Vingtieme Siecle.

My knowledge of European geography is poor, so it's unclear to me what Pepermans' exact route was. It sounds like he rode with Hergé to Leuven and then rode with de Proft from Cologne to Brussels - would that make sense though? And what is the "Liège express from Moscow"? Would Pepermans have boarded that in Cologne?

You're right that a similar publicity stunt was held after Tintin in the Congo; in fact, one was held after Tintin in America as well. So it's certainly possible that one or both photos may have been mislabeled. But that seems unlikely, since both photos claim to show Pepermans, who didn't return to the role for the Congo event. So if the labels are inaccurate, then they not only got the date wrong, but they misidentified the actor playing Tintin as well. --Jpcase (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing deprecated source

I've removed claims sourced to the Daily Mail. It's a deprecated source, and it absolutely should not be present in a Featured Article - it's literally the opposite of a Reliable Source, and grossly unreliable sources are a reason for defeaturing articles.

Per extensive WP:RSN discussion, and two wide general RFCs (WP:DAILYMAIL), the Mail literally cannot be trusted for factual claims, nor for fidelitously recording the words of claimed interviewees. Recent discussion on RSN is about the Mail being caught fabricating past content on dailymail.co.uk - you literally can't trust the Mail as a source for the content of the Mail.

Rather than using such a stupendously bad source in a FA, I've removed the cite and the text backed by it - which is not structural, so the article quality is not hampered.

Discussion of use of the Daily Mail on a Featured Article should be on WP:RSN or at the very least notified there - the two general RFCs are not a matter for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Then you'd have to remove a whole lot more, to maintain text-source integrity. In the process, you orphaned a sfn-cite, and let text stay unsourced. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly restoring the unusable, deprecated source. WP:BURDEN - which is policy - says: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. "the editor" is you, and "a reliable source" is not the Daily Mail.

If you really can't stand the present text - let's work out what a text that you liked without unacceptable sourcing would be - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)