Talk:Tintin in the Land of the Soviets/Archive 2

Reasons for non-adaptation to other media
I feel that it's a rather sweeping generalization to say in the header that it is because of controversy over it's polemical nature which has meant that there are no adaptations. Compared to other issues in Tintin books (attiudes to race, colonialism, and the lack of strong female characters come to mind) there isn't - as far as I am aware - any real groundswell of opposition to the book based on its politics. I would suggest that the main reason it hasn't been adapted is that, in terms of the other books, it is relatively unknown to the general public. Also you have to consider that having been out of circulation for the vast majority of the author's life, and arriving late to translation, the opportunity to adapt it has been limited. It wasn't in the canon at the time of the Belvision series, so the furthest back that series reaches is a brief retrospective frame or two of Tintin in his safari gear from Congo. It isn't in the 62 page format to start with, meaning that it wouldn't run to the same length as other adventures if made into a screen adaptation. The story, such as it is, is more a sequence of gags, many of them visual, rather than a strong on-going narrative, so it wouldn't work on the radio for things like the French audio record adaptations or the BBC radio series. The art hasn't been updated to be uniform with the other books (Tintin is rarely if ever drawn with a mouth in Soviets, and he doesn't adopt the shirt and suit, or jumper and trousers outfit he wears later), so animation wouldn't have been cost effective for the Nelvana series, as it would have needed a unique production design, even if the story could be brought to a standard length. No, I believe the politics - while a contributing factor to the book's difficulties - is just a minor impediment to adaptation: there are far more obvious practical considerations which have stopped it going to any other medium. Jock123 (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Free Russia award
There is a claim at Angoulême International Comics Festival Other awards that this book won an award in 1986 called the "Free Russia award", but I'm having problems verifying this. Leaving a note here in case anyone can help. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not accesible, but the Google snippet gives an indication that it is correct: first entry. Fram (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A need for a change?
"... Bolshevik Party, a Marxist–Leninist group who had seized power in the Russian Empire amidst popular support during the October Revolution of 1917." It was of course a military seizure of power by the Bolsheviks unlike the 'Feburary' revolution which had popular support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bolsheviks did certainly have popular support amongst certain quarters, for instance among many of the workers' soviets; whether they had majority support is another thing entirely. Perhaps the term "popular support" should be removed lest it confuses readers with the idea that the Bolsheviks had the backing of the majority of people in the Empire. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Frank Gardner documentary
A BBC documentary by Frank Gardner entitled Tintin's Adventures is just being broadcast on BBC Two (Sunday 30 October) and I've noticed that its actually taken a quote word by word from the introduction of this article, which predates the documentary by some time; "successful in discovering the secrets of the Bolsheviks and how they are stealing the food of the Soviet people, rigging elections and murdering opponents." Are we supposed to sue or something ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

Copyedit
I'm going to do a little copyediting; please revert anything you think is a mistake on my part. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed tag in lead
I undid the citation needed tag in the lead, if anyone thinks the lead needs work, please take it up here and discuss your complaints instead of just tagging. In any case, the sentence in the lead that was tagged ("Designed to be a work of anti-Marxist and anti-socialist propaganda for children") seems to be well cited in the body "Being both Roman Catholic and politically right-wing, Wallez was very much opposed to the atheistic, anti-Christian, and extreme left-wing Soviet government, and wanted Tintin's first adventure to reflect this, thereby indoctrinating its young readers with anti-Marxist and anti-socialist ideas.[12]" Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Designed to be a work of anti-Marxist and anti-socialist propaganda for children,
Is not sourced and is obviously WP:OR. I have removed it per WP:V and aforementioned policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not being cited in the lead isn't really an issue, see WP:LEADCITE for details. I put it back in with a citation though, so we can end this discussion. Also, you state that it is "obviously WP:OR", have you read the source that was cited for it in the body? I just did and it seemed to match up quite well with the text. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been an adaptation…
The claim that there are three books which have not been the basis of *any* adaptation is untrue - there is really only one: Alph-Art. Although the contribution is small, Congo serves as the basis of a very short sequence in the first episode of Bevision’s serialization of the books, showing Tintin in his safari gear from that book encountering a lion. Given it’s position in that episode, it is actually one of the *first* books to be given a Belvision make-over. Small animated sequences based on images from Soviets are interspersed in the BBC documentary, Tintin’s Adventure with Frank Gardner (2011). If you add to this that both books were “dramatized” at their conclusions, by having boy actors play Tintin as if he were real, arriving by train into Brussels, and incorporating reports and photos into the supplement the stories were published in, and they really should be included in an “earliest works to be dramatized”! A small matter I know, but as Alph-Art has never had anything adapted – as far as I know! – then I don’t think the claim should be made for Soviets, and certainly not in the header! Jock123 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Structuring the introduction
Dear editors. I hope that I have not become too possessive of this page – after all, it does not belong to me – but having been responsible for writing it and ensuring that it reached GA status back in 2011, I'm naturally concerned about the trajectory that it takes. User:Curly Turkey has recently been doing some top notch stuff work here and there making some edits to help improve it, and subsequently User:Prhartcom helped with some technical improvements, but at the same time made some rather significant changes to the structure of the introduction. Their edit devoted the entire first paragraph to a synopsis of the plot, with historical data on the authorship, publication and purpose of the article being pushed to the second paragraph. Now I admire editors who go ahead and are bold (I often am myself), but in this case I disagreed strongly with this move, particularly considering that it was done without any consensus or discussion with those who have contributed significantly to this article. I certainly don't wish to be rude to the editor in question, and respect their decision to make this change in good faith, but I consider this re-structuring to be a real step back for the quality and readability of this article. It places the fictional plotline to a level of importance above that of the actual historical context and data of the tome's authorship; to my eye, this turns away from the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, and towards the sort of text that one would expect from a fansite with a very "in-universe" perspective, something that contravenes Wikipedia guidelines. As a result, I undid their edit, but this was in turn reverted by Curly Turkey. In order to prevent an edit war, myself and Curly Turkey discussed this briefly on our talk pages, and decided that it would be best to bring this issue to the talk page, where the issues could potentially reach a wider audience. I hope that we can discuss this issue and come to a mutual settlement that is in the best interest of the page and its readership. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am all for whatever is best for the article. As Midnightblueowl has done much work on the article I am for whatever he decides. My big thing is consistency, i.e. consistency with the other Tintin book articles. That was the reason for my recent changes, as and as a matter of fact, I happen to disagree with Midnightblueowl's statement that the fictional story is not very important—and probably Hergé would agree with me. Please consider leaving the brief plot synopsis in the lead right where it is, then allowing the lead to move on to the subject of where this book sits in Franco-Belgium comic history. After you have strongly considered that, I have no problem deferring to other editors if they feel strongly about their views, and in fact I am quite pleased that so many of us care deeply about getting this article right.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  04:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I just re-read the entire article, and enjoyed it immensely; it is quite brilliantly written, full of good information; Midnightblueowl has done a great job getting it to this point. —Prhartcom   (talk)  17:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we have a couple of different issues intertwined here. Some of them have to do with standardizing all the Tintin articles, while others are specifically about this article.
 * Now, a typical opening lead sentence will start something like:
 * Oh, My Aching Back! is a 1947 novel by American writer I. M. Hurt.
 * So, in such a first sentence, we see the title (Oh, My Aching Back!), what it is ("novel"), publishing information ("1947"), and the author ("I. M. Hurt"). This is more or less standard, and what a reader would expect.
 * With Tintin, things are a little more complicated when it comes to the publishing information. It's a series, the stories were serialized as a comic strip (at certain times a daily comic strip), and the stories were collected; sometimes they were collected once, sometimes they were collected in B&W and then later redrawn in colour, and sometimes they were colourized and then redrawn and recolourized; then some of them have multiple English translations.
 * Which of these dates is most important? Which date is the reader going to want to see?  Of course, it will all have to be in the "Publication history" section.  But how much of it needs to be in the lead?  Do we need to have serialization in the laed?  Maybe for certain volumes, like In the Land of the Soviets and The Shooting Star, information about the serialization is actuall important.  Is it the first thing that needs to be stated? Why?
 * Obviously, I don't see it that way. In the case of Soviets, I see it as an important part of the Tintin story (as in, the story of Hergé and his creation), but not overwhelmingly so—not to the point where it has to eat up the first, reader-orienting paragraph.  It's simply not the first thing a reader is going to want to read about, which is why I think it should be bumped to the second paragraph.  The information is interesting and important in the case of this volume, but will be entirely superfluous in the case of most volumes, and only gets in the way of orienting the reader to what this article is about.
 * "Plot synopsis": WP:INUNIVERSE describes a style of article writing in which the article was written as if fictional events occurred in the real world—something that happens a lot on fan sites, and occasionally on Wikipedia (although less and less so these days, from what I can tell). A brief plot synopsis written in the present tense is not "in-universe".  Maybe the plot synopsis could be rewritten to be shorter and more clearly a synopsis, but I'm strongly in favour of having a description of the contents of the book in the opening paragraph: how about shortening it to: "The story is of young Belgian reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy as they travel to the Soviet Union to report on the policies of the state socialist government of Joseph Stalin and the Bolsheviks in the 1920s."?  Just enough to orient the reader.
 * I've got more to say, but I'll leave the rest to another time. Sorry I couldn't be more concise; I'm sneezing myself silly and don't have the stamina to edit this down.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite so, Curly Turkey. You know, when I was copyediting the lead of this article, I admit I was surprised when I realized we were going to have three sentences of plot summary. But then I admit I was pleased that the previous editors had written as much as they had—and very good writing too (a tip of the hat to Midnightblueowl). Take a look at The Secret of the Unicorn; those editors also wrote about the same amount of plot summary in their lead. Perhaps someday a few of the other article leads should be more like this one. I'm for leaving the plot summary in this article as written. —Prhartcom   (talk)  03:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view here Curly Turkey (and Prhartcom, as I am under the impression that you are in broad agreement), but I still can't bring myself to agree. Every time I read those first two paragraphs, I just think that it emphasises the fictional "in-universe" events over the historical, contextual facts of the book's authorship and publication, and for me that really doesn't sit well with the encylopedic ethos of Wikipedia. Other problems also exist with this version of the introduction; for instance, the second sentence begins "Young Belgian reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy travel via Berlin..." without even stipulating that these are the fictional events told of in the book. Someone could read this and think that these were actual, historical events that were being documented. I do concur 100% that we need to ensure that the Tintin book articles are standardised, and am also responsible for most of the text in such articles as Tintin in the Congo and The Secret of the Unicorn, so would like to pull those up to GA status in the next few months. As you clearly have an interest in the series, I would love to work with you guys on achieving this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The example sentence I gave above makes it crystal clear that the events described are fictional; here it is again: "The story is of young Belgian reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy as they travel to the Soviet Union to report on the policies of the state socialist government of Joseph Stalin and the Bolsheviks in the 1920s." No "in-universe" probelms, and as it is only one sentence, it doesn't overwhelm the other details.
 * I'd love to help out with Tintin articles, and have contributed to some (mainly The Shooting Star), but although I've read them all (except Alph-Art), I don't consider myself especially knowledgeable. My contributions would liely be limited to copyediting.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, your proposed sentence is a lot better than what this page has at the moment; I shall implement it to see what it looks like. I have access to pretty much all of the published English-language literature on the subject of Tintinology, so can help out with building the actual content of these articles, and would welcome any help with copy editing that you could provide. I think we should work together to straighten this article out, getting it completely up to scratch, and perhaps sending it off for an FA review, before moving on to another article (perhaps Congo, considering it was chronologically the second book ?) Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of things I want to say about the edits you've been making:
 * Authored and illustrated: I go through a lot of comics articles changing "comics writer and artist" to "cartoonist". I've never understood the allergy many fans have towards this word, and it bugs me no end.  In most comics, the writing and "illustrating" are not separate things—comics are not merely illustrated books along the lines of Little Golden Books.  Comics is a medium in which narratives are conveyed through their pictures, or a blend of pictures and text.  Outside of the conveyor belt-style of comics production promoted by Marvel and DC, the separation of writing and "ilustration" is exceedingly rare.  "Authored and illustrated" imposes an artificial distinction between two parts of the books—a distinction that doesn't even exist in many comics.  I could go on and on and on about just how wrong this is; in short, I strongly recommend "authored and illustrated" by dropped.  It's redundant, anyways—"cartoonist" implies the person who wrote and illustrated the work, anyways; it's like saying "written by writer Joe Blow".  Let's stick with "by Belgian cartoonist Hergé".
 * Hergé's Franco-Belgian comic: This is just silly.  It's Belgian, not Franco-Belgian—"Franco-Belgian'' refers to overall trends in European comics that manifested themselves most prominently in France and Belgium.  Further, there's the problem with the ambiguity of "comic" in the singular.  Too awkward, trying too hard to cram too much trivial information into the lead.  Change to "It".
 * serialized in black and white in Le Petit Vingtième, a children's supplement to the conservative newspaper Le XXe Siècle, from 10 January 1929 to 8 May 1930, then published in book form later that year. Too much trivial detail for the lead.  I'd drop "black and white" and the specific dates—"in 1929 and 1930" is more than enough information for a summary, which is what the lead is supposed to be.  I'd reword to: "It was serialized in 1929–1930 in Le Petit Vingtième, and in book form in 1930.''
 * "was the only one of the 23 completed Tintin adventures that Hergé did not later produce in a colour edition." I'd cut to "was the only completed Tintin adventure for which Hergé did not produce a colour edition."
 * It is one of only three Adventures of Tintin—the others being Tintin in the Congo and the unfinished Tintin and Alph-Art—that have not been adapted to other media. Trivia, unsuitable for the lead. I'd drop it.
 * ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding "cartoonist", I see your reasoning, am am quite happy to agree on this one. If my memory serves my correctly, I was not personally responsible for the inclusion of "Franco-Belgian comic" in this introduction, and although I am not overly averse to its inclusion, again I can see your point and am happy if you would like to remove it. On your third point, I am a little more uneasy; maybe it should be mentioned that the comic is in black and white, and I would prefer that the months (if not the actual days) of serialisation were retained here. I'm also happy to drop the final sentence regarding Congo and Alph-art. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with you on all of this, Midnightblueowl, so let us proceed. As for the mention "Franco-Belgian comics", I am torn. I see the reasons for leaving it out, but then again I think we should mention it, as it was a really important comics movement. —Prhartcom   (talk)  15:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I have restored consistency to the opening sentence and first paragraph (see other Tintin title articles, although I am working my way through them); I hope there is no objection. I wish we could restore the other well-written sentence(s) briefly describing the plot to the first paragraph.
 * Given that we still seem to be hashing out the details, maybe it would be best to leave the leads for the time being? Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just the first sentence that I restored to consistency with the other articles. I also hit Enter at the end of the brief plot description (currently only one sentence but at least two would be better). Oh, and I removed the (sorry) awful "the plot revolves" phrase.  I am moving on to the other Tintin articles.   —Prhartcom   (talk)  13:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen ? Assuming we're both male here I see... I'm not personally convinced that a focus on consistency should be a top priority here; I think that getting this particular article up to FA might be a better use of time, for it can then serve as a template for all other articles on the Tintin series. Not that I'm averse to you going through the articles and implementing consistency, but considering the structure of the introduction is still something that we are debating it would seem a little premature to roll it out across the articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, you certainly have my support getting this article to FA. Apologies for being too bold. Please tell me Midnightblueowl, are we good with the very first sentence? I believe Curly Turkey have already hashed this one out; he offered good suggestions and I have already run with them. —Prhartcom   (talk)  13:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing on a proposed introduction
As it stands, after Prhartcom's most recent revision, the article currently opens with the following paragraphs:

Now, I think that we can do a lot better than this, and hopefully the three of us can work together on implementing improvements through communicating here on the talk page, rather than edit warring on the article itself, which is what we seem to currently be doing. Myself and Curly Turkey have both expressed discontent with various words and sentences here, and I hope that together we can agree on the necessary alterations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sentence one: we mention "first volume of..." but I wonder if "first volume in..." might be preferable. Its a minor semantic point, but I for one believe that it would be a better use of English. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For your answer, try it out here and it will be obvious: "The first volume of War and Peace. "The first volume in War and Peace."  —Prhartcom   (talk)  14:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The analogy with War and Peace is not necessarily useful here in my opinion; Tolstoy's work is a singular novel, whereas Hergé's is a series of comic books. I still feel that "in" reads better in the context of this particular sentence, although it is not an issue that I am particularly concerned with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I have looked at a few other book series and it seems to be like this: They use "of" if they are saying the title of the series, i.e. "the first volume of The Lord of the Rings, and they use "in" if there really isn't a series title, i.e. "the first volume in the Harry Potter series." —Prhartcom   (talk)  14:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then we should perhaps use "of" because The Adventures of Tintin does have a title, although I still think "in" simply reads better in this particular instance, particularly considering the word "of" is used again later in the same sentence. Either way, it doesn't really matter, but I'd be interested to see what any other editors think about this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone, somewhere has split this hair fine enough to decide which is best, but I'm personally not aware of a difference. I've got no preference.  I should probably point out that I'm Canadian; since the article's in British English, I'll be deferring to you guys on usage issues.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sentence two: this is where I have major issues. As previously stated, I am of the opinion that this plot synopsis should be placed further along in the introduction, but I am the minority in this view. However there are other problems too; this sentence makes no explanation that what it is describing are the fictional events of the plot synopsis, instead giving the impression that these are real events that are being described. Furthermore I believe the wording could be greatly improved, and perhaps expanded a little to explain the opposition that Tintin faces in this comic; perhaps "The plot revolves around young Belgian reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy, who travel to the Soviet Union to report on the policies of Joseph Stalin's Bolshevik government; exposing the Soviet suppression of democracy and anti-kulak programs, he is pursued by OGPU agents who wish to silence him. ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree completely that it can be improved. Let me take a look at other articles throughout Wikipedia. —Prhartcom   (talk)  14:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a couple of helpful examples. The Asterix books appear to have consistency applied across them, although their lead is generally only two sentences (I think we can improve upon that). The structure of those leads is: Sentence One: Same as what we have with Tintin. Sentence Two: Statement about the publishing and how it fits into the series. Sentence Three: None. The Synopsis section is next.
 * The Harry Potter books are not completely consistent. The structure of those leads is either: Sentence One: Same as what we have with Tintin. Sentence Two: Brief plot Summary, perhaps like this: "It describes how Harry discoveres..." Next Paragraph: Statement about the publishing and how it fits into the series, same as we have with Tintin.  Or: Sentence One: Same as what we have with Tintin.  Sentence Two: Statement about the publishing and how it fits into the series. Next paragraph: Brief plot Summary, perhaps like this: "The novel features Harry's struggles with..."  —Prhartcom   (talk)  14:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a situation where we should not look too hard to import introductory structures from other articles (particularly articles that have either deteriorated in quality since achieving GA status (as with Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone) or which were of pretty poor quality to start with (as with the Asterix articles). Instead, I think it best if we devise an effective structure which works for the Tintin volumes themselves, which can be applied here and then utilised on the other articles devoted to the series. For what its worth, I am in favour of Sentence One: title and author, Sentence Two: Information on purpose and publication, perhaps including English translation and publication, and then Sentence Three: plot synopsis, perhaps as a separate paragraph. This is a similar structure to that employed by myself and others when we have been pulling academic titles, such as Dreamtime (Duerr book) or A Community of Witches up to GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense, I believe I agree with you, and I do want to alleviate your concerns, Midnightblueowl, until we get this right. How about: First sentence: What we have now. Second sentence: Add something like, "In this adventure, ..." to what we have now. New paragraph, first sentence: What we have now about the publishing and how it fits into the series, maybe slightly trimmed, but really not too much. New paragraph: Normally there would not be one, but in this article, or in any Tintin article that is somewhat unique, there would be.  What do you both think?  —Prhartcom   (talk)  16:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, too short is not good, either: WP:LEADLENGTH applies here.  This article is 16kb of readable prose, which puts it in the "two to three paragraphs" range.  I think the assumption is that if an article is of a certain length, it's because there was a certian amount of interesting stuff to write about, and that that should be reflected in the length of the lead.  That would be determined in t he other Tintin articles as they get fully fleshed out; I imagine most of them will be shorter than Soviets, though.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sentence three: Curly Turkey has various concerns here, as expounded elsewhere in this talk page, and in most of these I am willing to support them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey, you appear to value brevity, and are often for removing text. In general I agree with you; if we can trim and it still holds together then that is an improvement. But I worry about trimming too much and then losing content. The "black and white" for example is important. I am willing to support you both in your good ideas. —Prhartcom   (talk)  15:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't value brevity for its own sake; certainly not if it makes things harder to read.
 * In the case of dropping "black and white", though, we're not actually losing any information; shortly after, we are told that Soviets is one of the few Tintin books never to have been colourized. I don't thik the balck-and-whiteness of the book is nearly important enough to mention twice in the lead.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sentence four: there is simply no need for the reference here, for this fact is already referenced in the main body of the article. Furthermore, I believe that this sentence should perhaps be situated above sentence three. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I almost made this comment myself; I let it be, as remarks about communism and socialism can get people's danders up.  I'll leave this to others to decide.


 * Other comments: from an aesthetic point of view, I think that the introduction looks a little bottom-heavy, with the third paragraph being double the length of either of the previous two. This was not a problem evidence in my original version of the page, and while it is not a major issue, it bothers me somewhat, so hopefully we could do something about that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but of course this particular article is unique amongst other Tintin articles in regards to what this last paragraph is discussing; this last paragraph will not be in other articles. I am actually good with it the way it is now, very well done. —Prhartcom   (talk)  15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure; with most of the Adventures of Tintin, there is quite a bit of information that requires inclusion in the introduction; the dates that they were re-drawn and coloured, and mention of the multiple adaptations that have been made of them spring to mind immediately. For this reason I think that there will be paragraphs akin to the last one featured here in those other articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What you just mentioned are examples of what is common to all the Tintin books, and would come in the paragraph before the one we are discussing, which is stuff about how this book was never redrawn, etc., text that I believe can stay as is. —Prhartcom   (talk)  16:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably won't be surprised to hear me say that I think the dates of recolouring, etc. should be dropped from the lead entirely unless there's a particularly interesting story behind it—for example, the first book to be coloured, or the first book to be recoloured. These are technical details that are of the utmost lack of interest to the average reader, especially English-language readers (and guess who reads the English Wikipedia?) who will not have access to the various editions.
 * "Bottom-heaviness" is not a problem, and won't even be considered at FAC. Each paragraph should contain an appropriate amount of information, "appropriate" depending on its content.  Wikipedia articles are not a Procrustes bed.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I really have to disagree on one of your points there, Curly. I don't think that it's our place as editors to decide what the average English-language reader would find interesting (for what its worth, I for one would find the historical context of recolouring quite interesting and worthy of inclusion in the introduction). What is important is that we present the most important facts about the comic in the introduction, and the fact that it was re-drawn/coloured is certainly one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please keep in my that you are a fan on the Tintin series to the degree that you've taken the trouble to try to bring these articles to FAC—hardly representative of the average fan, let alone the average casual reader. The fact that the details of the book's publishing and republishing interests you in the first place highlights how far removed your perspective is from the average reader's.  As editors, we do have to use our judgement to decide any number of things—there are plenty of details not to be included at all (or do we really want an unabridged history of everything that has ever been said about William Shakespeare?); we have to balance the details we do include; we have to judge (and discuss) what is due and undue weight; we have to choose which words convey this information in a way that is both accurate and pleasant to read.  In my own judgement, publishing details should be relegated to the appropriate section of the article body unless there is a compelling reason to include it in the lead (e.g. the first coloured volume, the first redrawn volume, etc).  Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm hearing Curly Turkey's best suggestions are to concisely present the lead in a way that is interesting to the casual Wikipedia reader. As long as important details about this book (plot, background, etc.) are present somewhere else in the article, they need only be touched upon here, with a mind towards interesting, consistent structure. I propose that Midnightblueowl is the one that should proceed immediately and produce some good writing in the lead like what we've seen, keeping in mind the comments above. We will then boldly but gently copyedit afterwards. Cheers. —Prhartcom  (talk)  22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal Prhartcom! Taking into many of the suggestions that have been made, may I suggest the following as a potential replacement for the current introduction. Its not final, and I welcome feedback, but I hope that this would do the job more effectively:

What do you guys think ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I say that if I were watching this page and saw this edit, I would just stand back and try not to interfere, because obviously this an editor who knows what he is doing. Nice work.  Comments: 1) I see it is behind-the-scenes first, plot summary second.  Ah well.  I suppose it reads well either way.  2) Delete "ultra-".  I remember once in a different Tintin article an editor quite rightly removed examples of what was a little bit too much editorial commentary on political events.  (But I like "Intentionally designed.")  3) Delete "following which it was translated into a variety of languages during the 1980s."  Let's leave them wanting more.  Hopefully, after the reader has completed reading the last word of this lead, they will be hooked and want to read more.


 * —Prhartcom  (talk)  06:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I realize I'm going to come off as a nitpicking twat with the following list, but here goes:
 * "comics albums"—the "comics album" is a publishing format; the stories have been published in other formats, e.g. comic strips, omnibus, and mini formats. I'd drop it as an incidental detail.
 * "ultra-conservative"—is this a direct quote? We want to be very careful with poilitically-loaded language.
 * "from January 1929 to May 1930"—a pointless half-measure; too little detail for "real fans" who want exact dates, too much for casual readers who are just trying to orient themselves. The "bird's-eye view" that would be most appropriate to a summary (which the lead is) would be to drop the months.
 * "syndicated"—no, it wasn't.
 * "Intentionally designed"—as opposed to "accidentally designed"? Redundant.
 * "Soviet suppression of democracy and anti-kulak programs"—ambiguity alert: were the Soviets suppressing anti-kulak programs?
 * "anti-kulak programs"—what's a "kulak"? Is it integral to understanding the story?
 * "A seminal tome in Franco-Belgian comics"—the Tintin was a seminal series, but given how long this book was out of print (and its poor quality overall) I really doubt it is a cornerstone in the Franco-Belgian canon. I realize the fan in you wants to include such fannish details as the phrase "Franoc-Belgian comics", but this is not the way to do it.
 * "allowing Hergé to create Quick and Flupke"—not mentioned anywhere in the article
 * "Hergé refused to redraw, colour or republish it"—if he refused to republish it, then even if he had redrawn and coloured it, it wouldn't make a difference. Redundant.


 * Here's my attempt:


 * ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I generally like your suggestions Curly Turkey, and they do reinforce to us your helpful knowledge of comics and editing. But perhaps proposing an example that throws away every word of what Midnightblueowl presented only invites contention and will make this process take longer. Let's take the good parts of what he presented, apply your suggestions, and build upon it.
 * My comments on your suggestions: 1. Disagree (sorry). The sentence just reads better before. 2. I had already said that. 3. All right. This is the type of suggestion you have been consistently making.  4. Good catch.  5. All right, just "Designed" then.  A good suggestion.  Let us watch out for redundancy.  6. and 7. I have no comment, I don't know about this.  8. All right, let's go with the way you slid in the "Franco-Belgian comics" in your example.  9. Well then we need to insert it elsewhere in the article and leave it here.  10. I do like the way you worded it in your example; let's go with that.   —Prhartcom   (talk)  12:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize I come across as tactless, but I know myself well enough not to promise to present myself otherwise. Be assured that none of my comments or actions are meant to be disprespectful.
 * I think it's helpful to be able to see different versions side-by-side, and not to cling to any one version. None of these are in article space, after all, so nothing's being disrupted, and we can always go back to an earlier version if one version's surgery is too radical.   Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you on some of these points, Curly, and am glad that you brought them up. However, I maintain that we should specify that Land of the Soviets is a comic book; otherwise the reader might suspect it to be a novel or something, regardless of the fact that we mention that Hergé was a cartoonist. In issues like this, I think that being precise and specific is important. "Ultra-conservative" is not a direct quote, but it reflects that the newspaper was no ordinary conservative outlet, it was one which expressed a radical conservative, far right outlook; perhaps I should specify "far right" instead. I meant "serialised" when I wrote "syndicated" (silly mistake, sorry!), and I continue to maintain that the months in which it was serialised should be included, rather than simply the year; I just think that it adds some useful historical context. However, despite the issues which you have highlighted, I am of the opinion that my paragraph flows better for the reader that that which you have put forward (with the utmost respect to yourself of course). In your suggestion, the second paragraph contains sentences that are really rather long and a little unwiedly, while from a grammatical approach, the synopsis sentence simply doesn't work. Furthermore, the "The" in The Adventures of Tintin is a part of the series' name, and should not be excised in my opinion. Taking everything into account, I present a second suggestion below, combining elements of both. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) "ultra-conservative"/"far-right"—the thing is, political ideology is always a hot topic, the kind of thing people fight (and kill) for; it also depends on the country you're in—left/right, conservative/liberal don't necessarily mean the same things in different countries. If we're going to label the paper's politics, it had better be backed up with a source.
 * 2) months of serialization—what audience is this meant to serve? I maintain it will be unsatisfying both to fans and casual readers.  A lead is meant to give a bird's-eye view of the main points fo the article, and too much specific detail only obscures that; rather than orienting a reader to the subject, it loses the reader in a sea of tangential details.
 * 3) "the "The" in The Adventures of Tintin is a part of the series' name"—true, but style guides allow for this (in fact, recommend or require this), recognizing how awkward it is otherwise.
 * 4) "Commissioned by Abbé Norbert Wallez"—too much detail that is not related to orienting the reader, especially since this is only the second sentence; it slows down the very opening of the lead, like a speed bump in front of the start line of a race.
 * 5) One-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon.
 * 6) "became a significant part"—only "significant"?
 * 7) I'm surprised at your dropping specific publicity stunts; they don't take up much space, and just leave the reader hanging (we're not supposed to "tease" the reader). It also gives a feeeling for what a big deal the strip was so soon.
 * 8) I'm also surprised you dropped "improvised"; it's a single word, and given Hergé's reputation for detailed research, I thought it was pretty interesting provided deeper context.  Personally, I found this detail one fo the most interesting tidbits from the article.
 * 9) "Critical reception has been mixed."—This appears out of nowhere, and could mean pretty much anything. It's also a dull "thud" of a way to end the lead.

Let's keep in mind that the lead is not intended for Tintinologists; many details that are important from that perspective are totally unimportant (and a total drag) to the vast majority of readers. These details are in the body of the article for that minority of readers who want them (and many of them are in the infobox as well).

We also want to be careful with comics terminology. "Comic book" means something very specific to North American audiences (WP:COMMONALITY) that doesn't include books with spines. "Comic album" is jargony and unfamiliar to most readers, as well as being overspecific; this story in particular was never designed as a comic album, which makes calling it one an anachronism (the book was a result of its success). It also excludes the other formats I mentioned above. Let's not confuse form and content. "The Adventures of Mr Wiggle-Wiggle is a series of mass-market paperpack children's novels by I. M. Notapædophile" would never be accepted, even if it never appeared in any form other than as mass-market paperbacks.

Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You make some good points there Curly, and I think that the current suggestion that you have put forward is one that we can work with. In general, I think it does the job nicely, and avoids most of the problems of both your previous suggestion and mine. If I may, there are a few little tweakings that I think we could change;
 * "where it ran in 1929—1930" doesn't sit right with me. Aside from the fact that I would personally prefer to see the months in here, I think "in which it was serialised from 1929 to 1930" is a better use of British English.
 * "improvised" - I like the fact that you have included this fact, but am concerned that not all readers will understand what it means; maybe we could clarify it somewhat ?
 * "Land of the Soviets was accompanied with promotional stunts that included a faked letter from the Soviet Union and an actor at the Brussels-North railway station posing as a returning Tintin." I'm fine with this information being included, but think that the use of language could be improved here.
 * "ideological" is a problematic term to use. As the postmodernist trends in the social sciences and humanities have fairly conclusively shown, all literature is, to an extent, ideological, in that they are produced by people with an ideology (whether they choose to acknowledge that or not). I think "propagandist" would be a good substitute.
 * "one of the few Tintin stories"–in fact it was the only completed adventure that was not coloured; the others that weren't coloured, like Le Thermozero and Tintin et l'alph-art, were never even finished.
 * Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "serialised from 1929 to 1930": Okay.
 * "improvised": I'm open to suggestions.
 * "ideological"->"propagandist: Sure, that's better.
 * "one of the few"->"only": I wasn't sure if Alph-Art should be included. How about "the only completed Tintin adventure"?
 * ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By the time I hit Save Page there was an edit conflict with Midnightblueowl. I wrote this before reading his thoughts.  I am happy that we are starting to come together on this!
 * Suggestion to us all: If two of us suggest go in a particular direction, it would be helpful if the third person immediately recognise he is being outvoted and not take a stand and fight for it. It is better if we come together on this as expediently as possible without a tremendous amount of effort. Another suggestion to us all, that I think is obvious and should not have to be said: We put our egos aside always; it is the article that is important.  My thoughts on points brought up above:


 * 1) We won't ever be leaving out the "The" in The Adventures of Tintin.
 * 2) "The series of comic albums by Belgian cartoonist Hergé" is fine. It reads very well. No one is going to be confused by any words in it (and if we must, use the wikilink comic album, but I don't suggest it). Let's agree that we at least have completed the first sentence of this thing.
 * 3) We can express the ideology of the newspaper with the word "conservative" (and, if we must, use the wikilink conservative, but I don't suggest it).
 * 4) OK we can leave out the Abbe and mention him elsewhere if he is a bump in the road. We can instead say, "Commissioned by the conservative Belgian newspaper Le XXe Siècle".
 * 5) I think we can say the months of serialisation. We have already compromised by leaving out the days of the month.
 * 6) That's a fine idea to have the brief plot summary the last part of the first paragraph, combining two paragraphs.
 * 7) No need to include specific publicity stunts in the lead for the reasons you have been giving on other points. They can be specified in another place in the article. (Maybe we use a better word than "accompanied", i.e. "Bolstered by publicity stunts")
 * 8) We can include the words "improvised story", that's fine, as long as we mention it again with more detail later.
 * 9) Curly Turkey's final sentence reads very well; it is a good way to end the lead.
 * —Prhartcom  (talk)  17:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "If two of us suggest go in a particular direction, it would be helpful if the third person immediately recognise he is being outvoted": Prhartcom, this is really not how consensus is built—the Wikipedia spirit is to discuss things and consider each other's concerns. Votes are considered a last resort when there's a deadlock, but maintaining the status quo is unacceptable.
 * "We won't ever be leaving out the "The" in The Adventures of Tintin": despite that professional styl guides recommend or require this? I'm trying to find specifically where this is stated, but Googling "the" is a frustrating experience...
 * "comic album": linking "comic album" doesn't solve the problem—the problems are that (a) we would be giving weight to the physical format of the book; (b) the books have appeared in other formats, most significantly in comic strip format first; and (c) Soviets specifically was never designed as an album, it was only made into one as a result of its success.
 * "I think we can say the months of serialisation.": Of course we can say them—but to what purpose?  Who does this serve?
 * "Bolstered by publicity stunts": I thik that's good.
 * "improvised": I pulled that right from of the article.
 * ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

So how about this as a current suggestion ? I've made a few additions that I think might be of benefit Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is pretty good, though it could use a nip and a tuck here and there; I have to reiterate my question, though: what audience is supposed to be served by noting the months in the serialization dates? Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We're nearly there. My notes:


 * 1) To answer Curly Turkey's question, it is the general Wikipedia audience that is served this interesting information. By including the months, readers now accurately know that it took about a year and a half to write and serialize this book, as opposed to a single year.
 * 2) We will always include the word "The" when we mention the series title The Adventures of Tintin. That is the title of the series as named by Hergé.  We will not rename the creator's work to satisfy any editor's quest for brevity.  If any editor has an objection, take it to the talk page of WP:THE.
 * 3) Please tell me your thoughts on this one: I thought it was better when it read "...The Adventures of Tintin, the series of..." as opposed to "...The Adventures of Tintin series of...". I believe that the comma there is quite nice, it adds a little dramatic pause after the title. But I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this specific point.
 * 4) Tense is inadvertently being mixed in the brief plot synopsis. Let's keep it in the present tense.
 * 5) The sentence that opens "The plot was improvised on a weekly basis" is quite good. In the interest of consistency with the other Tintin book articles, may I ask us to decide now how this sentence will normally open?  For example, will it usually say, "The plot [was improvised on a weekly basis, and] tells of young Belgian reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy as they..."? Notice how this particular article would include the phrase in brackets while in other Tintin book articles that phrase would be absent, yet the rest of the words would still be there and all is consistent. Your thoughts?
 * 6) The last portion of the brief plot synopsis is more sterile and less interesting than it was before. It read better when it ended with the phrase "...agents who wish to silence him."
 * 7) The second paragraph opens with a bit of a run-on sentence; there are three separate thoughts there. Perhaps at least one of those should be separated by a period instead ("...was a commercial success. It appeared in book form...").
 * 8) Same note with the next portion of that paragraph; it is a bit of a run-on sentence. Perhaps change to "...part of the Franco-Belgian tradition.  In later life...".  Let's not put two or three thoughts that don't have much to do with each other in the same sentence.
 * 9) There is some good writing in this lead and it is really starting to come together. Good job to all.
 * —Prhartcom  (talk)  17:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the general Wikipedia audience would want to know that the work took "about a year and a half to write and serialize". I see it as being a half measure that satisfies neither the general reader who wants a quick overview, nor the fan who wants specifics (and the detailed specifics are right there in the infobox, anyways).
 * WP:THE is about naming article titles, not about usage in prose.
 * "The plot was improvised on a weekly basis": not just the plot, but every aspect of it was improvised. "weekly basis" is verbose. I'd change it to "serialised weekly..." in the previous sentence.
 * I don't see where tense is being mixed. Do you mean "is pursued"?  That's the passive, no the past.
 * in the second paragraph, it should be "The Adventures of Tintin", not "the Adventures of Tintin". This contrasts with the usage in the first paragraph, where the series title is being used adjectivally on the noun "series".
 * I don't think the other articles should have to follow the pattern of this one to the letter, but we shouldn't go out of our way to make them different. Beyond the first sentence, I don't think it even really matters.  I didlike "The plot tells of", however.  Plot is only one part of the story.
 * How about:

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Curley Turkey, is there anything in my text above that you feel like you could collaborate on?  —Prhartcom   (talk)  22:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd addressed most of your concerns (run-on sentences, etc) in the example above. I think the only thing I didn't was the wording of the synopsis.  Did I miss anything else?  Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, throwing my hat into the ring:


 * —Prhartcom  (talk)  07:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is pretty good. I guess we're down to final nitpicks.
 * I still see the months as a pointless half-measure.
 * I'd change "Hergé continued with" to "Hergé continued the series with".
 * I'd change "debut" to "debut story", as "debut" on its own can be a bit vague.
 * I understand your desire to close the synopsis with "silence him", but it makes for a more awkward sentence overall. How about "Tintin's discovery of the regime's anti-democratic abuses prompts pursuit by OGPU agents who aim to silence him."?  Although, honestly I'd just rather not force "wish to silence him".  Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Points 2-4: Good improvements. (I had noticed the awkwardness in the "silence him" sentence and still failed to get it right). Let's let Midnightblueowl work his magic on it (which I dearly hope will be the final version!). —Prhartcom   (talk)  18:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm very happy with Prhartcom's version here; one thing that's just bugging me though is "It tells of young Belgian reporter Tintin...". It isn't made explicit that what we are dealing with is a fictional narrative; some readers might think that it actually documents real events, particularly because it was published in a newspaper and refers to a reporter. Just a thought. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, Midnightblueowl, if you're very happy, I'm very happy. Your point about it may not obviously be fiction is fair; for example we explicitly say that Tintin characters are "fictional" in the first sentence of those articles; but I'm not sure it's necessary. Curly Turkey, I'm glad you think it's pretty good. I do also.  I have applied your suggestions, except for the awkward sentence, to which I added a single comma; did that fix it? Or if not please use the sentence you provided.


 * —Prhartcom  (talk)  01:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not terribly fond of the word "upset" here – they were more than upset, they tried to kill him! I'm concerned that "wish to silence him" might not be clear enough to some readers, so I think we may need to be a little more explicit. Also, we use "Herge" as the opener to two sentences in a row in paragraph two, which could be fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) How about :


 * Bravo. There are some good improvements here. This reads very well.  Except (ha) you originally wrote "silence him"; wouldn't you prefer "agents bent on silencing him"? It has an espionage sound to it, no need to be more explicit. I'm happy with it going into the article. —Prhartcom   (talk)  03:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Silence may have an "espionage sound" to it, but hat doesn't mean it will be familiar to readers, or clear even to those who are familiar with it. How will they silence him?  With a bag of rubles?
 * "while the series" makes it sound like the series' succes happened tangentially to, rather than subsequent to, In the Congo. Should change it to "and".
 * The second sentence of the synopsis still reads awkward to me, especially since it's an action-packed sentence whose impact is blunted with the use of the passive. How about: "Tintin's discovery of the regime's anti-democratic abuses prompts OGPU agents to hunt him down with intent to kill."?  Unambiguous, jargon-free, and plenty o' drama in that one!  Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem lies in the fact that OGPU tried to kill Tintin before he had even reached the Soviet Union, by blowing up the Brussels-to-Berlin train. The sentence that you suggest implies that they only try to do so after he has discovered the regime's secrets. Furthermore, I'm not so happy with the term "anti-democratic" here. Aren't the majority of things done by the majority of the world's governments throughout history "anti-democratic" in one way or another ? I think "the regime's secrets" is better here, indicating that the government were fooling the world with their grain export, vote rigging, faking factory production etc etc. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about: "Tintin's intent to expose the regime's secrets [abuses?] prompts OGPU agents to hunt him down with intent to kill."? Curly Turkey (gobble) 15:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. So here we go:

Midnightblueowl (talk)


 * I just noticed an errant comma: "children's supplement, Le Petit Vingtième" could be "children's supplement Le Petit Vingtième". Brilliant job, all. At two weeks of discussion per section, it will only take us a year to improve the entire article!  —Prhartcom   (talk)  19:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A day later, I re-read it and it is still a brilliantly clear and interesting instruction to the book article for any reader. I will start putting the other Tintin book articles in similar structure and style.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)