Talk:Carreidas 160/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Neelix (talk · contribs) 02:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased to see a well-sourced article on a fictional inanimate object; there aren't many of those around. Despite having a very short history as an article, it seems to be in good shape. I will leave more specific comments below. Neelix (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer's comments

I wrote a list of recommendations for improvements to this article, but then I decided not to submit them. I am sorry to say that I am not confident that an article on this subject can ever meet criteria 1b to comply with the Manual of Style guidelines on writing about fiction, particularly with respect to summary style approach. My most major concern is that this article currently contains mostly in-universe information. Articles on fictional subjects need to balance in-universe information with real-world information. The "Creation" section provides good real-world information and there is a little real-world information in the "Fictional technology" section, but there should really be more, considering the large amount of in-universe information. Ideally, there would be a "Cultural impact" or "Critical reception" section explaining why the Carreidas 160 is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. If the Carreidas 160 hasn't had any cultural impact and it hasn't received commentary by critics, then the information in this article would be of more benefit as part of the Flight 714 article. You've written this article well, Prhartcom! You have demonstrated here and in other Tintin articles your solid article-writing abilities. I wish I could give you a more satisfying review. I will put the review on hold to let you respond and/or look for more real-world information about the aircraft. If such information does not exist, I would recommend a merger into Flight 714. Neelix (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Neelix, I believe we can work something out here, if you're willing to help me, as I have a few ideas for keeping this article. I believe you are a fair person, you don't stubbornly stick to a position "no matter what", so I believe that you will look at these points objectively and even creatively, in order to help me keep the article.

Notability and real-world vs in-universe: Of course we want to be grounded in the real world. This was always my intention and I was worried that perhaps the article would be perceived as in-universe. It was. However, you suggested a couple of ways to fix that.

• Critical reception: The Carreidas 160 has indeed received critical reception. Not pages and pages of it, naturally, but enough to be notable. The critical reception is in the form of commentary regarding the supersonic business jet by the usual "Tintinologists" who wrote the Tintin reference works that we always refer to. Now the situation is, though, that I have weaved this critical commentary into the article as it currently exists. You know this. I purposely avoided having a section labeled "Critical reception", partially because I knew that it would likely be only a short paragraph (what you see in the bibliography is all we have), but mostly so that I could instead take the opportunity to use their commentary throughout the article in an interesting way. I believe it really works this way, allowing us to focus on the jet and how it was created rather than on the men who commented on it. Do you like it this way also? Do you agree that the jet has received a critical reception and that these Tintin critics provide the critical reception that is needed to show that the jet is notable?

• Fictional technology: While I was writing this section, which uses Roger Leloup's pictured design as a source, I was wondering if I should continuously remind the reader that we are referring to Roger Leloup's design. I ultimately stopped mentioning the design intentionally so that the reader could focus on the fictional technology. But perhaps I should add in phrases that remind us that we are talking about a cross-sectional drawing in order to ground the jet's description in the real world?
• Let's remember that there are numerous links to real-world Wikipedia plane parts in the Fictional technology section. In other words, really nothing about the plane is fictional. This plane could really be built in the real world.

• Cultural impact: Now here we have an interesting situation, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the following points. The Carreidas 160 has indeed had a cultural impact. But unlike what I stated above, I have left the cultural impact out of the article. The problem is the cultural impact is often in the form of unreliable sources. I don't know what to do about that.

• Model makers have created small physical models of the Carreidas 160, in order to sell it to fans who wish to place it in their trophy case or on their office desktop. We need a way to correctly refer to the (unreliable) web pages that show that these physical models exist.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

• Flight simulator makers have created full-size digital models of the Carreidas 160, in order to sell it or give it away to fans who wish to fly it in their flight simulator software packages. We need a way to correctly refer to the (unreliable) web pages that show that these digital models exist.

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

• When a passenger jet recently disappeared in the Indian Ocean and news agencies were speculating on it's fate, more than one news source reported that the missing passenger jet was reminiscent of the missing Carreidas 160. We need a way to correctly refer to the web pages that discussed this comparison.

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

I trust you and I await your reply. Thanks, Neelix. Prhartcom (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Update. I asked someone's opinion but it wasn't fair to do so before you replied. Please let me know what we can do. Prhartcom (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I meant to tell you I have been improving the Flight 714 article in my sandbox here: User:Prhartcom/sandbox/other4. It will soon be ready and will cover the subject of the book in the same way that all the Tintin articles do. Prhartcom (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Having spent more time considering this article, the additional sources you mention, and CorporateM's comments below, I have decided to fail the GAN. The content is well-written, but shouldn't exist as a standalone article. All of this content could easily fit on the Flight 714 article, which is a better location for it. It is good to see that you have already started working on developing that article via your sandbox. I have no doubt that you are able to develop that article through to good and then featured status just as you have done with other Tintin installments. I like the 2014 news story that you located, and think that the corresponding newspaper articles could source a very interesting section on the Flight 714 article. Neelix (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

@Prhartcom: asked me to take a look. Unfortunately I cannot assess the article-subject's notability, because I do not have access to most of the sources[16][17][18][19][20]. However, I do notice that almost all of the sources are about TinTin and not about this plane specifically. WP:GNG does not necessarily require that this plane be the main focus of the source material, but does prohibit us from cobbling together information from brief mentions. If these books have a chapter devoted to the plane, that would suffice. CorporateM (Talk) 00:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)