Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in the Land of the Soviets/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 18:13, 14 November 2011.

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has achieved GA status, and although it has been rejected from FA status in the past, the comments provided at that point have been worked upon, bringing the article up to a better quality standard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't include leading zeroes for single-digit page numbers
 * Ranges should use endashes, even in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the two instances of zeroes, and retitled the section using an endash from "Re-publication" to "Later publications". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC))

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Media Review Ahh, Tintin. Racism, plagiarism, gross cultural and social misrepresentation, all the things you want to expose your children to at a young age to help them develop into well adjusted human beings. That aside, the images are fine. I resized one, but for once, I didn't have to fix a T:I or FUR. Good show.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  12:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Support by Sceptre
 * Comments: Ah, Tintin. It's obligatory that I should review this. Incidentally, do we have an FA for the release of the Spielberg/Jackson/Moffat movie up?
 * The prose checks out, and I'll make a few little edits to the prose to make it read better.
 * "It is one of only three Adventures of Tintin...": I assume the other two are Congo and Alph-Art, given that I have the boxset for the 1991–2 series which adapted all of the traditional 21, but a lay reader won't know that (or even know of the existence of Alph-Art).
 * There are redlinks in the Background section, including one deleted image, which should be removed or replaced.
 * The history section as a whole does a good job of talking about Catholic antisocialist sentiment in the 1920s and 1930s, which is, of course, important to the writing of this comic. One thing I think that should be included, if it exists in analysis, is the contrast between Land of the Soviets and Congo, which were effectively nationalist propaganda pieces, and anything from The Blue Lotus, which had a reputation for being extremely well-researched.
 * I can see nothing particularly wrong with the "later publications" section.
 * (Added 23:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC):) Your method of referencing is strange; have you considered using harvnb instead of plaintext in the refs? I'm not sure if there's a precedent for doing names in smallcaps either (especially when the parameter "last", I believe, has COinS issues.) Sceptre (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to you to do any improvements you see fit, and I'll check in a couple of days and decide whether to give it support or not. Sceptre (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for that Sceptre; I've made some of the corrections-improvements that you suggested. However, I have not altered the referencing system in its entirety (although made a few alterations); I see no reason why that really needs changing, as it is still fairly simple and self-explanatory for readers in my opinion. I have also failed to add information on how Herge progressed in his researched post-Cigars; this is a topic that should obviously be dealt with in articles on Herge himself and his later works, but I am unsure whether it is of particular relevence here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Hi. How you reference is fine as long as you're consistent, and while strange, your style is definitely allowed. Re, Hergé's attitude to research post-Cigars: I brought it up because I'm aware that Zhang Chongren didn't want China to be portrayed in the stereotypical way the Americans, Congolese, and Soviets were: did Zhang ever comment on Soviets or was it a general comment about stereotypes in the first three adventures? It's not a deal breaker, and I'd be happy to support this article at the moment; I'm just curious and it'd be interesting to give a sentence or two to if such a thing happened. Sceptre (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there, and thanks for your support. Whilst Zhang/Chang (I've seen several spellings) did comment on the earlier works, I'm really not sure whether he commented on Soviets specifically. I suspect that he would of, particularly considering how the two Chinese gentlemen in Soviets are pig-tailed torturers (hardly an accurate image), but I am unsure if this is recorded in any of the texts on the subject (at least in the English language); maybe in future this information will be revealed, and could be added to this page at that later date. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

Hi. I've been going through the article. Just a couple of Comments for now while I remember. If I notice any more, I'll add them after.
 * In the Plot section: "...sentenced to death by firing squad. Tintin survives his execution..." This seems a little too vague to me. Did all the bullets miss? Was he badly wounded but he crawled off? Or did something else happen whereby the gunmen didn't actually fire, in which case can you say that he "survives his execution"?
 * For consistency, would it be worthwhile to not have any citations in the lead, and move refs #1 and 2 down to the main body of the text where the issues are discussed?
 * Some of the sentences are kind of long and unwieldy. I tired to correct one. Here's an example of another one that is pretty long and complicated: "Here he is brought before the local Commissar's office, where the same OGPU agent that tried to kill Tintin on the train secretly instructs the Commissar that they must make the reporter 'disappear... accidentally'." Moisejp (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments Moisejp, I'll come to each of them in turn. Regarding your first comment, I agree, and have made the correction. With your second point, I agree entirely that one of those references was unnecesary (and I have removed it) - the other however pertains directly to a quote, and so I recommend that it is left in. And on your third point, I personally do not find such sentences "long and unwieldy", I think it is a matter of personal taste. I'm more than happy for a change to occur, if it is the concensus, although it would not be my own choice.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC))
 * OK, that sounds fine. Though overall the sentences are longer than I would write them, I don't have a strong opinion, and do concede there could be a matter of personal taste. Right now I'm working through the article one more time over the next day or two. If there's anything else I'll let you know. But overall it's looking very good, and I'll likely be supporting, unless I suddenly notice something major. Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments Generally the article reads very well; there's just a couple of things stuck out to me that you might want to consider. The first is that "yet" (i.e. "yet again" or "yet another") is used 3 times in the plot section's final paragraph. The other is the two instances of "staunchly" to describe both Wallez and the newspaper. It already seems a cliché to describe someone as "staunchly" conservative and it jarred a little the second time. Again, otherwise the prose is good. I've no idea about Tintinology but it seems pretty detailed for a comic book article. I haven't reviewed an FAC for a while but I'd lend my support if the consensus were to lean that way. bridies (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I did also raise an eyebrow at "Tintin survives his execution" for the same reasons as above. bridies (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Bridies; I have removed two of the "yet..." words in that paragraph, which does make it a little less repetitive. Regarding the use of the term "staunchly Roman Catholic" I would personally argue that it should be kept, because it illustrates the attitude that they took towards the religion, although equally I am not too aversed to its removal.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

1(b) concerns Comments. I'm copyediting at the moment; the prose is definitely improved from the first nomination, but I am finding a few tweaks to make. I'll add comments below as I find them. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that the serialization was from 10 January 1929 to 11 May 1930, but the Le Petit Vingtième article says the end date was 8 May 1930. I suspect the latter is correct, because both 11 May 1930 is a Sunday whereas the other two dates are Fridays.  Could you check your source on this?
 * "Instead, he filled the story with" -- this use of "instead" doesn't really work, because there is nothing to oppose it to. I think the intended meaning is that there were very few facts for Herge to work with, so instead of incorporating factual material he made up (and borrowed from Douillet) scenes that depicted the Bolsheviks in a negative way.  I've copyedited the prior sentence so it doesn't read quite as it did, but neither form of the sentence made it work properly -- currently instead implies "Herge made a lot of factual mistakes.  Instead, he ..."  I suggest making the intended meaning explicit: how about "Instead of providing factual material, he depicted the Bolsheviks ..." which makes the opposition much clearer.
 * Per your comment below I've made this change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the second point you have my full support Mike! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Right, I've checked on the date of the ending of Soviets original publication, and can confirm that you were right, it was the 8 May 1930 after all. This fact is actually missing from all but one of the English language published texts on Tintinology that I have access to (it being mentioned in Assouline), and I have no idea where the other date had come from to be honest. Thanks for pointing that error out! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
 * I think the prose is good enough now; it's much improved from the last version I saw. With the exception of the question above about dates, which I do think should be addressed, I have no more concerns about the content that's there.  However, the article seems thin on the work's reception and on reviews of it.  The "Influences and analysis" section talks about Herge's motivation and the construction of the work, but not about any subsequent analyses of the work by critics.  There's a little in the "Publication" section, but much of that is specifically about the artwork or the staged publicity event.  I had a look at the prior FACs, and there was a comment about the need for a critical reception discussion there -- I did notice that you've added two sources mentioned there.  I looked for additional sources on Google Books and found a few more that look like they might have material:
 * Jean François Revel, Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era
 * The Economist, Volume 313, Issues 7616-7617
 * New Statesman, Volume 133, Issues 4669-4676
 * André De Vries, Brussels: a cultural and literary history -- De Vries claims that all of Douillet's claims about the USSR were confirmed as being accurate.
 * I'd like to hear from you that you've surveyed this sort of material and have selected what you need; i.e. that your research extends beyond just the works cited. There appears to be a lot written on Tintin and Herge, and I'd like some reassurance that this article is comprehensive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks there Mike; I currently own most of the books published on the subject of Tintinology in the English language (with about two minor exceptions that are out-of-print and hard to obtain, but contain little or no information not included in the other books referenced here). For this reason, I can concur that this article contains the majority of information on Tintin in the Land of the Soviets which has been published in English. Perhaps more has been published in French, but unfortunately I am unable to read that language. Regarding the four books that you refer to above, I have looked up De Vries' book on Brussels, and have now quoted it in the article, but I do not believe that the work is sufficiently reliable to use it as a reference that all of Douillet's claims were correct (it is after all an overview of Brussellian culture not an examination of human rights abuses in the early USSR!). It is perfectly possible that Douillet's claims were correct, but surely an academic historical study of the Soviet Union would be more reliable in this aspect ? Performing a google books search, I couldn't actually find Revel's book (perhaps because I am in the U.K. ?), and I am unable to access the articles from The Economist or the New Statesman on Google Books; is there another way to access them that you are aware of ? Many thanks (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC))


 * Support: I've read through the article again, and all my concerns have been addressed. It's a very interesting and well-researched article. Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, since I'm inclined to think the article meets the criteria; I'm satisfied with the prose and editors familiar with the research have found no issues with the content. bridies (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment and recuse: I share Mike Christie's concern, and would like to see more thorough review here from other experienced reviewers, for prose, comprehensiveness, accurate representation of sources, and POV. Disclaimer, I have a significant COI: I have seen Midnightblueowl's work at Hugo Chavez where this editor inserted and has not corrected significant prose and POV issues (long detailed on article talk). I am encouraged that Mike Christie copyedited here, so the prose is probably up to snuff, but my previous experience with this editor leads me to ask that we get some more independent looks at accurate representation of sources, with an eye towards POV. (For example, I noted The Economist in Mike's list above, and although it is a reliable source, it has been excised from Chavez to create POV.) I tried to do this myself, and found many of the sources behind paywalls. With another experienced reviewer looking at Mike Christie's concerns, I'd feel more comfortable here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No offence SandyGeorgia, for I respect you as a pillar of the Wikipedia community and for the great work that you do here, but coming onto this Tintin page and criticising my work here because of a disagreement on the Hugo Chavez page is, in my opinion, below the belt. The neutrality dispute on the Chavez article rests on a debate as to the reliability of the right wing media in discussing socialist politics, which you have championed as reliable and I have argued is not (and we've both had other editors supporting us in our respective arguments). It is not - I have argued on the talk page there - about me trying to impose my own POV, which you are essentially claiming I have been doing on both the Chavez article, and implying that I have done the same here. I don't think it fair to drag the argument about Chavez here, to a page that is about literary history, and I don't think we should discuss it any further on this page. I will tend to Mike Christie's concerns when I have the chance, which I cannot currently do as I am away from the resources which I would normally use in creating this article. Again, I really apologize if I'm coming across as rude or over-critical Sandy, but I just feel that your behaviour toward me here is not befitting your status as a pillar of the Wikipedia community. Perhaps I am reading too much into your above statement, but I feel that it is bordering on being an attack against my character rather than a genuine constructive criticism about my work in producing this article. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Mike Christie brought up a source, The Economist, that is not mentioned in this article. Just today, you acknowledged on the talk page of Hugo Chavez that "'these sources are innately economically right wing and thereby biased against the economically left wing Chavez government, and so cannot be taken as reliable, neutral sources but must be viewed as forms of opposition media.'"  That is as far from anything reflecting Wikipedia policies on sourcing and neutrality as I have ever seen an editor openly acknowledge on Wikipedia.  When you refuse to consult reliable sources raised by reviewers, in an article about a topic which reflects a POV you openly acknowledge, it most certainly is fair game to raise that on this FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such a prompt reply Sandy. On this particular article, I have not stated that The Economist, or the New Statesman for that matter, are innapropriate sources - I just didn't know that they existed prior to Mike Christie bringing them to my attention, because they were rather minor sources relating to the topic of this article. I am unable at this current time to read up on the sources that Mike Christie has highlighted because of prior commitments, but I will get around to it in the coming week. As it is my opinion on The Economist which you seem to be most interested in, I believe that there is a big difference between its usage as a reference on the Hugo Chavez page and this page; The Economist is, at its heart, a paper that is open about its capitalist affiliations. I therefore have grave misgivings about using it as a supposed nuetral source on an article about a socialist president; I do not have such misgivings about its discussion on this particular comic book. And I most certainly don't believe that it is "fair game" to attack me as you have done; I certainly have not been doing the same to you. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Pointing out that your stance on The Economist as a reliable source is not at all reflective of Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality policies is not an "attack"; it is a statement of fact. It is because of your misunderstanding of our sourcing and neutrality policies, and sources that were not consulted for this article, that I am concerned that additional review for comprehensiveness, sourcing, and POV be undertaken. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  The Economist is a reliable source.  You have stated at Chavez that you think you can pick and choose sources according to ideology: while that has been done on Chavez, it cannot be done on an FA. I'll be awaiting your feedback on the sources identified by Mike Christie that have yet to be consulted. Further, Mike Christie pointed out that "De Vries claims that all of Douillet's claims about the USSR were confirmed as being accurate"; this needs to be addressed for neutrality.  Also note WP:WIAFA, 1. (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: BBC journalist Frank Gardner did a documentary last weekend about Soviets, containing some information that may be of use. You may want to check the reliability of television documentaries, though, before using it directly as a source. Sceptre (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Being naturally very interested in the subject of Tintin, I viewed the BBC documentary, but can't say that there was anything of real benefit for this particular Wikipedia article. I certainly wouldn't say that it was a reliable source - in the documentary, Gardner admitted that he hadn't even read all of the Tintin books, and in another part he quoted this Wikipedia page word for word; I strongly suspect that much of that documentary was written by a script writer who had used this Wikipedia page as a basis! Nonetheless, it might be worth noting in this article that the BBC produced this documentary ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC))

Reluctant oppose (again) by Ruhrfisch. I opposed the first FAC on criteria 1a, b, and c grounds, and missed the second FAC. The prose is much improved (so I think it basically meets 1a now) and I like what is there. The problem is what is missing, so there are still 1b and 1c concerns - is this truly comprehensive and is it well-researched?

In the first FAC I wrote The article does not have a separate section on Reception or Critical responses, and the little critical material that is there is pretty pro-Tintin. I think this is still the case and find it odd that an article up for FA on work of fiction has no critical recpetion section. In the first FAC I spent a few minutes searching via Google and found some book sources that seemed as if they should be included. Although the two books I mentioned in that FAC are now cited in the article, I went back and looked at "The metamorphoses of Tintin, or, Tintin for adults" by Jean-Marie Apostolidès, translated by Jocelyn Hoy again here there is fairly interesting material on the evolution of Herge's work over time and how material in this volume was reworked and reused in later Tintin adventures. Page 34 lists five episodes in this work which were reused in later volumes, and on page 124 there is a discussion of how Herge changed the characters of Tintin and Snowy over time and gave some of the traits Tintin displays here to Captain Haddock. Page 33 of the same book notes how much Tintin changed over the years, going from gunplay in this work to pacifism and far right politics to something like "the Liberal Left". Theobald's book spends about seven pages on the book, discussing five themes of anti-Soviet propaganda seen here.

While I am glad to see the improved prose and the inclusion of a smattering of material from the two sources I found, I still do not think this meets 1b or 1c. There is an awkwardly placed paragraph quoting Theobald at the end of the Later publications section that is the kernel of a critical reception section, but more is needed. I do not have the time or inclination to search further, but I recall seeing other promising books in my earlier search. I also note that each book is on Google Books and so is missing pages, and a search for the title of the book may easily miss material that makes reference to this work in other ways (I did not search things like "Tintin's first adventure" or "time in Moscow").

Criteria 1b and 1c (emphasis mine): "(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

Sorry, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries Ruhrfisch, you've provided some useful constructive criticisms here, that will undoubtedly allow the article to be improved further in future. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Have you reviewed suggested structure at Manual of Style (comics)? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, unfortunately, on 1b and 1c. This looks very interesting and promising to boot—but after a few minutes of poking around in major databases, it's clear a lot more attention to sourcing is due. Even among sources that you use in the article (such as Theobald), a lot more depth of information is available than what you use. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.