Talk:The Shooting Star/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy to offer some thoughts.


 * In the plot section, you say "Unknown to the Aurora expedition", but you are yet to introduce the Aurora expedition by name.
 * Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "he exhibited a strong dislike of American big business,[7] and had exhibited" Repetition
 * I have changed the first instance of "exhibited" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "As with most of The Adventures of Tintin which feature sea travel" Could this be rephrased?
 * I've rephrased this to "As he had done for other Adventures of Tintin which featured sea travel". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "an expedition to the North Atlantic to find a meteor fragment" I've already made some edits on a similar theme, and maybe this is picky, but meteors, by definition, burn up in the atmosphere. If anything reaches the ground, it is a meteorite. (Before it enters the atmosphere, it is a meteoroid.)
 * Always good to know. I had just assumed that they were just synonyms. I have now gone through the article and ensured that "meteorite" is used appropriately throughout. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Björgenskjöld may be seen on the right of the panel in which Professor Phostle is given the flag to plant on the meteorite." Is this referring to an image which has since been removed?
 * I don't think so, but I was not responsible for authoring this particular note, which has been added to the page since I nominated it for GA. Given that this information is causing a problem, and it is not referenced, I have removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This information was not added added to the page recently; it was added 9 January 2008 (here). Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hergé featured a gag in which two Jews" I think "gag" is a little informal
 * I do see what you mean, but I am unsure what synonym might be more appropriate ? The term "comic scrip gag" is certainly one that I have come across in literature on the subject of Tintin. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This panel happens to be in Wikipedia, and I believe it would help the readers to show it to them. May I please take this opportunity to ask you both what you think about the idea of including this panel in this article? Or somehow referring the readers to this other article, which includes the panel? User:Brigade Piron and I are discussing this here. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "was "more parodied as a financier than Jew"." Could you check that quote?
 * I've just checked and can confirm that it is perfectly correct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "International Jewry" I feel that this should be in quote marks or something. We don't want to be seen to be endorsing the idea that there was such a thing...
 * ''I certainly see what you mean but I am not entirely sure that I agree, because I'm not sure if "International Jewry" is directly quoted in the reference used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect Olivier Mathieu is worth redlinking; he has a fairly hefty article on the French Wikipedia, which suggests that he is notable.
 * Agreed; I've added the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "To Mark McKinney" Perhaps you could indicate who he is? Journalist, historian, literary critic?
 * The two paragraphs on McKinney's ideas regarding anti-Semitism in The Adventures of Tintin have been added by another editor following my nomination of this page for GAN. Unfortunately however, they have made a major error: Mark McKinney is not the author of the chapter being cited ! The actual author of "Trapped in the Past: Antisemitism in Hergé's Flight 714" was literary critic Hugo Frey, while McKinney was the editor of the overall anthology in which Frey's chapter was published. I shall endeavour to correct this, clarifying who Frey is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good catch; this was indeed added quite recently; 17 November 2014 (here). Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "as promoted by such as the journalist Édouard Drumont" Clumsy wording
 * I've re-written much of this paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "The concludes with" Ditto
 * As above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could specify whether Rastapopoulos appears in this piece?
 * I've moved the sentence mentioning Rastapopoulos, which hopefully no longer implies that the character appears in The Shooting Star. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: When re-reading the article today, upon reaching this passage, I was surprised at the mention of Rastapopoulos, wondering how I could have missed his appearance in the book. I don't think it's possible to mention this character without implying that he appears. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Tintin's previous adventure, The Crab with the Golden Claws, had been serialized weekly until the demise of its children's supplement" You should specify that the "it" is Le Soir
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm left feeling that this article would really benefit from some pictures showing the supposedly anti-Semitic elements of the strip. The image that is already there could maybe stay to illustrate the alterations; the rationale could also be strengthened by a mention of the research that Hergé put into making the boating scenes/boats look realistic (this could also be added to the image's caption). These articles are a good example of a place where a fair few non-free images may be justified, but watertight rationales will really help in that regard.
 * That's something that I shall definitely bear in mind for proceeding to FAC in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hergé's publisher had him agree to a new album format of four sixteen-page signatures, which gave sixty-two pages of story plus a cover page." This paragraph isn't so easy to follow. Are we talking about the books, here?
 * I've tried to change the prose here to make it a little clearer. Let me know if you would like to see further alterations made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "As The Shooting Star progressed he cut up" "He" is presumably Hergé, but you have just referred to the publisher, too.
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "would cause a heat wave" This element of the story has not been introduced.
 * I've corrected this section of prose to make things clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm sorry; I may have removed this fix. I came across this passage and found it awkward, changing "For instance, in the story," to simply "For instance,". It seems perfectly obvious to me that Assouline's discussion of "the meteorite's approach toward Earth caused a heat wave" is referring to the story. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest, given the fact it jarred with me and at least three commentators have mentioned it, that the unrealistic/fantastical nature of the whole story be mentioned in the lead?
 * It's an interesting suggestion, but I'm not convinced, particularly because fantastical elements are present in a large proportion of The Adventures of Tintin. But of course I am open to suggestions for how it could be mentioned in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, I think J Milburn is on to something here. This Tintin adventure stands above many others in it's depiction of nightmare and madness. It is one of the primary features of the book (that, and its anti-semitism, which we go on and on about). And I should most definitely acknowledge that the article does cover this topic pretty well, even if the lead does not. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you check the Lofficier quote in the blue box? It doesn't actually make sense
 * I can confirm that the quote has been transcribed correctly. I agree that the prose is a little iffy, and that it doesn't read particularly well, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it doesn't make sense. I also think it should remain because it makes an important point about Herge and this particular comic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I love both of the quotebox quotes; they neatly summarize the problem with this book. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "kept the reader daily on tender hooks in a story replete with new twists and humour" Another very odd quote- grammatically a bit weird, but "tenterhooks", not "tender hooks" is the idiom. Could you check this one, too? "[sic]" may be appropriate.
 * Well spotted! I have consulted the book, and it has "tenterhooks"; looks like it was me who made that bizarre mistake - oops! I have corrected the article accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "He calls the story's opening pages ... and that" This doesn't make sense
 * I've changed this to "He characterises the opening pages of the story as being". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "as evidence highlighting that the first" Slightly odd construction
 * I've changed this to "as evidence pointing out that". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "believed that the star itself is" Perhaps "star" could be put in quotemarks?
 * I've avoided doing so lest it looks like I am directly quoting the source, however what I have done instead is to change "the star" to "the shooting star", thus clarifying that the phenomenon being discussed is not an actual sun. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a general note, but I'm inclined to think that saying that academics "assert" things is a little judgmental. For example, perhaps rather than Turning to the political elements of the story, Apostolidès asserted that it represented a conflict between "the incarnation of unregulated capitalism against the spirit of European values" and that Hergé was adhering to "a utopian vision that in 1942 smacks of pro-German propaganda". you could have Apostolidès analysed the political component of the story in terms of "the incarnation of unregulated capitalism against the spirit of European values", arguing that Hergé was adhering to "a utopian vision that in 1942 smacks of pro-German propaganda". or something (my suggestion may not be perfect either). I've not read the book, but I'd hope anything published by Stanford wasn't just a series of assertions!
 * I really like your proposed wording, so have changed that prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "the spider which climbed in front" Again, this element of the plot hasn't been introduced yet. How about simply a spider?
 * Looks like someone else has already changed this to "a spider", and dealt with the point that you raise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the adaptations section, could you link (redlink if necessary) to articles on the respective series?
 * There's no need to redlink, because we actually have articles on those two series! I have added the links. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Directed by Stéphane Bernasconi, the series has been praised for being "generally faithful" to the original comics, to the extent that the animation was directly adopted from Hergé's original panels." The episode was directed by Bernasconi, or the whole series was? The latter is implied.
 * The entire series was directed by him, as the text conveys. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if anything can be done about this (maybe something to think on before FAC) but the article ends with a fairly trivial point, for my money. It's a shame, because there's a lot of really interesting stuff in the article.
 * A fair point, but I'm not sure how we can actually change this scenario at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have massaged the final sentence somewhat, maybe that helps in a small way (and "spodges" is not a word, I don't believe). All our Tintin articles end with a discussion of their adaptations; a bit anticlimactic. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the utility of Category:1940s in fiction; surely it's already in a subcat of that with the graphic novel category?
 * Hmm. We do categorise The Crab with the Golden Claws (already GA) under that category already. Perhaps a third opinion ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I applaud J Milburn's thoroughness; I forgot to pay close attention to the categories of the Tintin articles, just as the GA reviewer of that last Tintin book probably also did. J Milburn, are you saying that all the Tintin book articles should be of the "[year] graphic novel" category but should not be of the "[decade] in fiction" category? I mean, they are fiction? But I suppose all graphic novels are fiction. What about category "[year] books"? Whatever you say here I will consistently apply across all the Tintin book articles. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Really interesting read; a really nice article. I accept that some of what I've said is picky for GAC, but I thought you'd appreciate this if you're aiming at FAC. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good to see you around the Tintin articles, J Milburn! Prhartcom (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! It took me a while, but I think that I have answered all of your points here J Milburn. You may wish to check to see if you have any further comments/queries/responses. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 30 November UTC)
 * Just wanted to add: Brava! to Midnightblueowl for improving this and many other Tintin articles. Prhartcom (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to go ahead and promote. For my money, this is a great article, but I do have some suggestions for improvement looking towards FAC:
 * I do still feel that the fantastic element of this installment should be mentioned in the lead. It's apparent from the plot section that there's a degree of fantasy, and the fact that it's picked up on by several critics suggests that it is an important aspect of the story. It would also help set the tone for the article as a whole.
 * The rationale could probably be strengthened on the panel images. If you are going to include and image displaying the supposed anti-Semitic elements (honestly, I think it could potentially be justified more strongly than the current image) do ensure that it has a very strong rationale. Be aware of cluttering the page, though. I agree that the quoteboxes are good, so would not support removing them.
 * If quotes are themselves a little grammatically off, sic may be worth adding.
 * Access dates on the web sources (not Google Books or journal articles, though) would be good.
 * As ever, plumb the depths for any further useful sources to cover the "comprehensiveness" issue. Getting another pair of eyes to check the prose also couldn't hurt. Though it looks good to me, I won't pretend to be a professional copyeditor.
 * Do think about my "Internatinal Jewery" point. If the sentence can be rephrased easily, I'd go for that.
 * I retract my comment about the categories- I see the category trees aren't as intuitive as I thought.

However, without a doubt, this makes a very good GA right now. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have put the article in Good articles/Language and literature. If you feel that it would be better placed elsewhere, I have no objection to it being moved. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)