Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Adventures of Tintin/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Adventures of Tintin[edit]

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Sandy 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of those articles that were good by the standards in 2004, but would not pass today without a major rewrite. In my opinion the problems are:
  1. The article doesn't have enough references, with only 6 poorly formated footnotes.
  2. The article is very much focused on the in-universe aspect, and should provide more information about how it was conceived as well as crtical reactions. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more information.
  3. The article fails to mention the individual comic books as well as the newspaper strib, the TV series and the movies.
  4. The article is listy. Please prosify the list or remove them entirely.
  5. The article has a trivia section disguised with the name "In popular culture". Most of this should be removed and the rest should be used in the article.
  6. Sections like "Stage adaptations", "Memorabilia", and "Merchandise" are underdeveloped. Generally we should not have paragraphs with fewer than three sentences.

I hoped that this gets fixed, but I don't think it will happen. --Maitch 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remarks about pictures:
    • In general: most pictures could be made a bit smaller for aestehic reasons.
    • Lead picture: the current lead picture doesn't add anything (as Tintin is shown below) and seems to violate fair use as a consequence. I suggest to replace it with an album cover, which would give the reader an impression about how the comic book looked.
    • 6 pictures (all the pictures below the Thomson & Thompson picture, except the stamp perhaps) seem to violate the fair use criteria #3 and #8. They hardly add anything, they are not integrated in the text, they don't seem necessary or to contribute significantly - and as a consequence seem to be merely decorative. Even if they would have had a clear purpose, one picture would have been sufficient. Sijo Ripa 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request a stay of execution to fix this up? I have some source material and could attempt a rewrite, but I've never had an article featured as yet so I'd appreciate a good run and a lot of advice. I'll attempt to make a start on the concerns above in the next day or two, if that's okay. Hiding Talk 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, going by the policy you have two weeks before it is even considered for removal. I think the removal process takes two weeks too, so that would give you plenty of time. If significant improvements are made during the review it would also be fair to extend the deadline. Good luck improving the article. --Maitch 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? The diff shows not much happening with references: is more time needed? diff Sandy 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The large edits you see in the diff were done by me. I tried to get the ball rolling, but there hasn't been any real activity. I have no intention on finishing the job, so I would rather see it being de-nominated. Hiding is apparently on a wikibreak, so he won't be doing any editing either. --Maitch 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness insufficient citations (1c) comprehensiveness (1b), structure and writing perspective (4). Marskell 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are you referring to the copy in my user space? I need about another week to get it ready for the main space, is that going to be a problem? If so, I can move what I've got across and just hash it out in public, but it's hard to get a handle on such a major rewrite in that manner. Hiding Talk 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a good faith attempt to address all concerns which can be seen at User:Hiding/The Adventures of Tintin. Sadly it's a one man effort and I'm asking for a good faith adjournment of one week to fix this up. If I haven't managed it then fair play, but it's a bank holiday weekend here and I've got my wife's birthday so it's not going to be as quick as you seem to be moving. I appreciate Wikipedia has to maintain standards, but I can't see how a week would make much difference. I'd appreciate any comments on what I've got so far. Thanks. Hiding Talk 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm puzzled as to why this has been moved to FARC. The guidance states The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. I've asked for more time, I'm attempting to address all concerns, and it would be useful to continue the review. Are there issues with the work I'm undertaking in my user space? Nobody has commented on the edits I've been making, I believe it is common practice to work up a FA in user space, so I'm confused as to this sudden turn of events. Hiding Talk 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why I have not commented on the edits made so far is that I don't like to disrupt an editing process. I think the reason the article was moved to FARC was because of the user space copy. People just look at the real article and see that no progress has been made. With that said I don't understand why you have to have a user space copy. People only do this when they are working on a high traffic article. This article only has about one edit a day on average, so I can't see the big trouble in editing there. --Maitch 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's just my preference. I've seen a number of FA writers do the same thing, and it just allows me to workshop better. If I'm working on the article in situ, I have to get the edits right, and the way I work that's not always possible. I can't always leave it in a viewable state for readers, and don't see any need to disrupt readers. I appreciate it's not a high traffic article, but every editor works in a different manner. I've got about 16 different sources I'm working from and I'm still not clear what the final shape of the article will be. If people can't accept that progress is being made I have trouble not seeing that as failing to take account of my efforts. Is the process here more important than any show of good faith in what I'm doing? Should working practises have any bearing on the final outcome? I'm puzzled that there's such a problem here, I'm simply asking for time, something I would think can easily be extended. Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. Hiding Talk 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if there were such concerns with my user space edits, someone could have pointed it out to me, no? Hiding Talk 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the concerns my editing style has raised, and placing the article above my objections to such concerns, I have started on editing the article in situ. Would people compare these edits before voting and consider if they begin the process of addressing the concerns above. I would hope that the insufficient citations can be put to bed, I may have gone too far in the other direction but I've never found guidance as to what to cite and what not to and erred on caution there. I'd also hope that the structure and writing perspective is seen to be in hand, and that the comprehensiveness is taking shape. I would appreciate any comments to the contrary, and any help in getting the article across the line, but I would hope voting could now be adjourned per the guidance on this page, and we get on with getting the article where it should be. Hiding Talk 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding, in case it's not clear, this is going to remain another two weeks in this section! It's two weeks + two weeks. No final decision will be made if things are on-going. So keep working away, no rush for this weekend. Marskell 23:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And to add, if in case it's not clear: this first move to FARC is largely procedural. After +2 weeks it goes down unless it's definitely decided its back to standard and can be closed. I noticed Sandy's status comment and the two comments from you guys, but moved it down to keep it on schedule. This wasn't a vote against your work in user space. Marskell 23:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair play. This page and process has changed a lot since the last time I was around these parts so I'm not au fait with the whole way it works. As you can see above, I'm also very good at arguing with myself. Hiding Talk 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Been busier than I would like, both on and off Wikipedia, but managed to expand the memorabilia section per concerns above, and also replaced some fair use images with freer images, as can be seen here. Will try and get more work done next week to the stage adaptations and include mention of the anthology comic and newspaper strips and the like. Also, am hoping to source a copy of Tintin : Herge and his creation from the library. Hiding Talk 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the content and referecing of the article has improved. Full reference details, rather than just URLs should be provided.--Peta 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't fancy helping out there then, do you? Hiding Talk 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to say, as the person who started the nomination, that I won't be available before next week and therefore would like to postpone judgement on the article. --Maitch 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status: What's up folks? How do you feel about this Maitch? Marskell 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my part I've just scored Tintin: Hergé & His Creation by Harry Thompson, The Adventures of Tintin at Sea and Tintin: The Complete Companion both by Michael Farr from the library, so I would appreciate an extension to get them read and compiled. I think the article has improved greatly, whilst I accept there are still edits to be made. I would like to get the criticisms section better sourced, and I know Maitch would like to see the overview section split into two: a publishing history and a plot summary of the books, and I think there's still concern with some of the paragraphs. That said, I think this article is over the hump, as it were. It's not yet comprehensive, but it is well cited. I can't answer for the writing perspective, but I hope that's going okay. I'm tied up with admin stuff at the same time, but I'm hoping to get to work on the criticisms tonight and tomorrow and hit the summary and publishing history through the rest of the week, I see them as the easy bits, they don't need so much citing. The reliance on fair use images is unfortunately a given, it appears any image of a copyrighted character can breach copyright as a deriviative work. Hiding Talk 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has improved greatly and many kudos to you on that count, Hiding (also, User:JimmyBlackwing if s/he's watching). This is just the kind of engaged work we want from an FA review—look back a month and this was definitely below standard.
A few small notes, because I just made an edit: for criticisms, particularly when dealing with race or gender, we have absolutely no business qualifying anything as "absurd" (or "big" or "small" or anything else), even if we have a source. Let the facts speak for themselves. An absurd stereotype may be hateful and demeaning in the same breath. The "Criticisms" in general needs more sourcing. There are also a few grammatical issues, but broadly this meets 1c, IMO.
Anyhow, more or less ready to close. Before closing, I'd just like a last comment from the nominator. Marskell 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Remove: The overall tone is appropriate, but two of the lines early on that clearly present a positive or negative opinion: "Hergé managed to infuse the strip with his own impish sense of humour, and also to create supporting characters who... were filled with a comfortable charm"; "Hergé also had a great understanding of the mechanics of the comic strip, especially with pacing a story"; and also the De Gaulle quote at the end needs citation (or removal). Once these minor issues are addressed, I'll change to Keep. Andrew Levine 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the prose is in need of some work and polishing before closing: if the prose is improved, I'll vote Keep. Sandy 13:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note on prose. I've started to look more closely, having ce'ed the intro. Run-on sentences is the first problem—if the subject of the sentence is artwork, don't introduce a clause on plotlines. There is also a bit of linguistic excess that tends toward fan-writing: "sophisticated satire" is more an encyclopedic than "dashes of sophisticated satire."
Two specific notes on the intro: I added a fact request for number of translations and I made the assumption that this was originally published in French. Hiding, please double-check.
It looks this is being re-engaged past deadline, but no worries I say, as long as it's being worked on. Marskell 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am back and I will now make a more thorough review. Generally, the article has improved, but I still don't think that it would pass if it was a FAC today. There are still a number of problems that does not fit the featured article criteria:

1a) There are problems with the prose as a couple of people have commented on.
1b) It is not comprehensive. There needs to be a complete publication history instead of the fragmented one in the overview section.
1c) There are entire sections that are unreferenced, such as "Stamps" and "Translation into English". Please find a reference for the Charles de Gaulle quote or loose it entirely.
1d) The article mentions criticism of the Tintin series, but fails to mention positive critical reactions. There is some mention of the success of the series in the lead, but this information is not found in the rest of the article.
3) The images Image:TintinCast.gif and Image:Tintinstamp.jpg needs fair use rationales.

With that said I think that the review should run as long as people are working on improving the article. --Maitch 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • People seem to have forgotten {{sofixit}}. The de Gaulle quote was so easy to cite, all you had to do was type it into google. The translation section is referenced, see the references section. Hiding Talk 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And no positive criticism? I'm at a loss as to what the legacy section is especially the quotes from Gravett, Horn and Serres. Hiding Talk 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have removed my 1D objection. I would like to say that I treat this review like a FAC, which seems to have tougher standards. I might have to losing up on those standards, but lets see. On another note, the reviewers of FA and the peer review process are not expected to do the work at all. I have actually made many edits to the article during the review process
  • Tentative keep (Note, having engaged this review, I won't be closing it). "Tentative" because I'm not completely finished my own copy-edit and because of some niggling concerns on 1c, but "keep" because I believe the larger issues from Maitch do not rise to removal:
    1a) As noted, prose is being addressed (by a few people, now).
    1b) This is quite comprehensive in terms of production, authorial intent and biography, coverage of major themes, and critical response. This has what I'd expect it to have. Full publication history is a good idea, but might actually over-burden the page. A sub-list with this and the list of adaptations might be appropriate.
    1c) I have placed a couple more fact tags myself. The info appears to be there, as they're generally quickly taken care of and there's a good variety amongst the already listed references.
    1d) No, critical praise is definitely mentioned. It's woven into the article throughout.
    3) Fair enough. Better rationale or other images would be good. Of the two, based on Wiki copy-tag wording, its actually the stamp that needs to go. Marskell 19:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only two cite tags left, multiple editors actively working on improving the article, and several copy edits have improved the prose. Sandy 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide fair use rationales for images. Joelito (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Yomanganitalk 15:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The unbelievable amount of work that Hiding and the other editors have put into this article has paid off. Thoroughly sourced, well-written and comprehensive. I've seen much worse make it through FAC. JimmyBlackwing 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/The_Adventures_of_Tintin/archive1&oldid=242297606"