Talk:Tintin in Tibet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 23:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Matty.007, greetings. A few editors regularly edit the Tintin articles, and we are working our way (very slowly) through the process of preparing and reviewing them for GA. We have numerous Tintin books and reference material from which to ensure WP:RS. I would like to see this article as GA, but it needs a lot of work and I am not yet sure you are the editor to do it. I will be a bit hard on you if I review this article for GA. Are you up to the task? Prhartcom (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Prhartcom: there are set GA criteria, I have compared this to the two featured articles in the series, and I feel this measures up. I cannot see that this needs a lot more work to get to GA standard, but if you review this, I will see. Thanks, Matty.007 15:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Matty.007, greetings again. First of all, welcome to the Tintin articles of Wikipedia. We do indeed need more serious editors who are truly interested in committing to the project of improving all of the articles about the Adventures of Tintin canon. Just the fact that you are still here indicates that you are serious about your willingness to see Tintin in Tibet as WP:GA, and for that I appreciate you and your expertise you bring to the table.

Yes indeed there are GA criteria (and there are FA criteria as well). We need to ensure each and every item in the GA criteria list is met for this article, and that I know you would agree. There are also a fair number of specific improvements I, the few other editors here, and any responsible editor would want to see for each of the Tintin articles including this one. A consistency of format, content, and quality is a must. For example, comparing this article in it's present form to the Tintin articles for books one through seven (which we have completed) would include:

To Do list

Prhartcom (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the FAs Tintin in the Congo and Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, there is no adaptation section.
• I can see only a few issues with the references, which I'll fix
• I have access to the Thompson and Apostolidès book (being online)
• I have limited access to books, so will see if there is anyone from a relevant wikiproject to help
• In all, it seems mainly like changing headings and giving a little expansion. I will do as much as I can expansion wise, but this is not FA, this does not have to have as much info as the FAs in the series. Thanks, Matty.007 08:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for saying you will fix the references; FYI there are tools that can help. Those first two books weren't adapted. I haven't found anyone else on Wikipedia with the books other than the other two who watch and edit these articles (and another who used to edit but is now an administrator and can no longer) so I began collecting them on my own in order to help; I can help with this improvement. (But I am so busy in real life. I wish I could devote much more time to this project.) Yes this would not be a FA review but it would be a GA review and it would require some effort to bring it up to the level of articles of books one through seven. I admire your courage and welcome your contribution if you are up to the task and do hope this can be accomplished. Prhartcom (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Review

Good start.

• For the Synopsis: Haddock suddenly appears on the cliff face after mention of Tintin spotting the scarf; please add some mention of him prior, perhaps having "a change of heart". Please add a wikilink to Blessed Lightning, as a redirect article exists for him. It is not clear who "he" is in "he tells him to abandon his quest"; please edit. No need for quote marks on "final lap". "Tintin taking Chang away" and "scares him away" awkwardly repeats word "away"; please edit. Please remove "and took him away from the rescue parties". Entire synopsis is too long, regrettably; please cut. For example, it starts to bog down during the "final lap" part and during the "blowing his nose" part. Learn what to cut here: WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE.

"Final lap" threw me as it was an unusual expression, but I removed it in the plot reduction. Wikilink and clarification done. Removed sentence. Shortened. Not sure what your first point here was? Thanks, Matty.007

No matter, it is fine. Synopsis is clearer now but is still too long. Read WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. I suggest leaving first half alone but cutting whole sentences in second half that clearly bog it down. Compare to other GA Tintin plot summaries Prhartcom (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Most of the first paragraph of the Reception section now contains duplicate sentences that still appear earlier in the article; please edit.

The lead is summarising the article. Shortened the bit a little. Matty.007

Agreed, it is fine after all. Prhartcom (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank-you for including the Google Books URLs; some of the tail end of the new URLs can be removed as that is only tracking info; please experiment and learn what to remove those portions from the URLs. Please copy over large portions of the Bibliography from articles of books one through seven, ensuring consistency across articles. Footnotes 1–7 and 27 contain errors. Please ensure everything claimed in this article is backed up by referenced source. For some paragraphs, every sentence will contain a footnote to its source.

Fixed ref errors, URLs shortened. Matty.007

I also fixed ref errors and shortened URLs (note exactly how I shortened; do you agree it is an improvement? Again, thank-you for adding the URLs in the first place, that was a big improvement.)

• Please consider getting started on the changes I mention are required above.
• This weekend I will commit to re-reading my Tintin books and contributing the necessary editing. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Attempted fix (and a question or two) of issues. Thanks, Matty.007 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am still reading and verifying, and will reply back soon. See To Do list above in which I stated this is "in progress". Matty.007, feel free to click "Edit" in the To Do list itself and type the same "in progress" as needed. Prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Review 2

• What is this saying? The syntax is off, and it runs on and on.... "The plot of the book revolves around the young reporter Tintin who, aided by his faithful dog Snowy, his friend Captain Haddock and the sherpa Tharkey, their treks across the Himalayan mountains to the plateau of Tibet, having arrived by way of India and Nepal, in order to look for Tintin's friend Chang Chong-Chen whom the authorities claim had been killed in a plane crash over the mountains." Howunusual (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed it a bit, but my change isn't much better. Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• The connection between the "psychological issues" and the comic is pretty tenuous. As far as I can tell, one person has said the story has a snowy setting and a rescue-motif because the uathor kept dreaming about white and was going through a divorce. Does that really deserve an entire section? Howunusual (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I really enjoyed reading the article :-) Howunusual (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know (though I don't have the books), the person who suggested it is a Tintin expert, and I presume this is the only thing we have about why that was the setting. Thanks, Matty.007 19:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's based entirely on a single source, and is subjective anyway, I think it should be condensed. Howunusual (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but he is one of 5 or so experts that there are, there aren't many... What do you think Prhartcom? Thanks, Matty.007 08:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am checking my own sources (although I only have half of what we need); I have checked Thompson and I am checking Peeters now; I believe the others will contain material for the article that can be researched and referenced. Note that I have edited the article, changing to the Harvard citation style consistent with other Tintin articles (including the Adventures of Tintin article. I will reply back here tomorrow after I have read more sources and checked more of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Queries

• What do you mean 'More copyediting (mostly removing text) is needed', i.e. which parts need removing?
• What kind of image is needed?

Thanks, Matty.007 15:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I would look to the articles of books 1 through 7 and the Adventures of Tintin article for your answer, comparing those Tintin articles which have reached GA/FA to this, and you should be able to see. A little more specifically, I would shorten the Synopsis where it lags, and see if there are other sections that can express the same points but in fewer words (tighten). Just as I mention we need new text written, we need other text removed. I will be glad to provide sentence-by-sentence advice if needed. As for images, perhaps a free historic photo to set the scene, or I was considering the non-free panel of Tintin shedding a tear (which I have already scanned) accompanying new text specifically discussing the tear. Prhartcom (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the plot's OK, it doesn't seem too long and doesn't lag for me. As far as I know, the only text which needs removing may be a little in the plot. I think the info on Tintin crying is probably in the books rather than. I'll have a look at the other articles in the next few days to see about the info to add. Thanks, Matty.007 16:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Interpersonal communication

Matty.007, the times we have had disagreeable communication is when you have stood directly against what I say. For example, if I suggest the synopsis is too long, and you directly oppose me 100% and essentially say, "NO IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS", or if I say Thompson referred to Chang, and you directly oppose me 100% and essentially say, "NO HE NEVER REFERS TO CHANG". Instead, I suggest that you 1) begin by assuming good faith and remind yourself that if the other person says something, that person must think it is true and correct, and if you still oppose it then check yourself to ensure perhaps you may be the one that doesn't understand, and seek understanding. But if you do so and still find a problem, then 2) seek clarification or take what the other person offered and work with it, improving it if necessary. But never stand in direct opposition to them or directly contradict them. I happen to have the role of the reviewer of your efforts to improve this article for GA, and I also happen to have many years of writing and copy editing experience, so I would appreciate it. Does this sound like good advice that you can agree to? Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the only way to continue is to be frank with you.

• Give me an example of when I have not AGFed? Opposing changes is in no way not assuming GF
• I also have had some time of writing and copy editing
• I never said that Thompson "NEVER REFERS TO CHANG", and I never shout
  • I said that Thompson "makes absolutely no mention of Zhang Chongren". This is completely true. You said Thompson spoke about him, and didn't explain who he was. Thompson doesn't say his name once
• If you want something changed, the burden of evidence is on you to say why it must be changed if I challenged it
• Why on earth not oppose or contradict? If something is not right and I disagree with it, what is there to gain by me adding it to the article?
• You are not the innocent party here. I think we both could have improved communication. Counting whenever I disagree with you doesn't help anyone

If I disagree with you, please don't be annoyed, that's how I work. If I ask you to explain, be patient. I am human, I make mistakes, I am completely falliable. If I can't see the improvement in a different wording, explain it to me. Don't get cross with me, that helps no one. All the best, Matty.007 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have just given you two examples of you not assuming good faith when I stated, "you essentially said" and I gave the two examples. Did you not comprehend what you read? My message to you was "Never stand in direct opposition to anyone on Wikipedia" but instead 1) check yourself, and if that fails 2) work with what they say. Never directly 100% oppose them. That is too much; it shows a lack of respect and understanding of what they are trying to tell you. I never waste words, but with you, you repeatedly force me to repeat myself, as I am doing here. I don't think you have even comprehended my advice I gave to you about never standing in direct opposition to anyone, but I still hope you will re-read it and eventually understand it over time.

I agree with you that if I want something changed, the burden of evidence is on me to communicate what needs to be done, and I think I have done so. I have given you general advice, and when you did not act upon it, I have given you very specific advice. And still you fight me over it.

I don't know if you have worked with other tough editors before, but I can tell you I have learned to be tough by having my work reviewed for FA/GA. I learned to pretty much always say "yes I will" to a reviewer and maintain great respect to them. Remember, you are not their peer, they have volunteered to review you, and you have volunteered to submit to their review. It is not the same as when two editors get together as peers to work on a project. You may not know this, as I notice you ask me to "argue my case". That is wrong, the reviewer never "argues" their case to the reviewee. Now of course if the reviewer says something wrong, then politely point it out and ask for clarification or otherwise try to work with what they say, and they will appreciate you for spotting their mistake and doing so in such a respectful way, as you did not stand in direct opposition to them or directly refuse them. Anything that makes the article better than before the review began. Do you see what I am explaining?

For being a bit too tough on you at times, I apologise. I have been known to do that sometimes, especially when I believe the other person is not listening. You are right when you say none of us are infallible.Prhartcom (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I never stood in complete opposition, the majority of the time I did what you said. But mindlessly following what the reviewer says isn't what GA is about, it's about getting the article right. If I disagree with you, I tell you, and you explain. I don't mindlessly add content. All content on a page, by definition of being on the page, must have a reason for being there. When you want to add information, and I disasree with you, I ask you to give the reason for adding that material. Anyhow, none of this is helping the article, I suggest we both drop the matter. Thanks, Matty.007 18:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is only one response to a reviewer after he has taken the trouble to point out your failings during a review, and it is "Yes I agree and will do better next time." You have not even indicated that you understand me, let alone pledge to improve your actions. You are letting your ego get in the way. I have seen it before. You remind me of a teenager arguing with his parents!

If you are so sure you know what GA is about, then WHY haven't you actually done more than a tiny amount of your own original work to improve the article? Are you not aware that when you insist on arguing with me, as you are doing above, you don't have a leg to stand on, as you have done almost no original work on this article, especially when compared to the amount of original work I have turned in? Are you not aware that the vast majority of the work you have done on this article has been in response to my giving you explicit instructions on what to do? WHY haven't you done your own research, copy editing, or writing? In your position as nominator, you are generally expected to make improvements to this article that is your own work. Then I am expected to review your work, telling you how your work can be further improved. Instead, you began this review by stating that you did not expect to do any work on the article at all, as it was completely fine the way it was! Were you expecting to be given a GA for doing nothing? Apparently so! On that day, I wondered about your abilities, as you continued to not improve the article you had nominated. I then gave you general advice, in the form of the To-Do list. You hardly acted at all, continuing to do almost no work. Finally, I gave you specific sentence-by-sentence, very specific advice. In other words, I did your work for you by doing all the research, copy editing, and original writing myself, and telling you exactly what to edit. I could have just made the change to the article myself after doing all that work; it would have been easier for me, but I gave it to you to do so that you could have the credit of making the changes. You took some of what I gave you and had the nerve to argue with me, your reviewer, about the rest. And STILL you continued to not do more than a tiny amount of your own original research, copy editing, and writing. You were apparently blissfully unaware of your responsibilities and continued to fail spectacularly at impressing your reviewer—the person who would give you the GA.

One more chance. I want to see some original work from you that improves this article. My guess, however, is that you will continue to let your ego get in the way, and will continue to be too lazy to do much work (Edit summary: "Changed little"), will continue to argue, and will probably even accuse me of being the one with the ego, and then will quit, harming your reputation in the process. If so, you will fulfil what I said about you on the very first day. Prhartcom (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: I know you are a good person, as you were so kind to give me the Wikigift, which I do not deserve (I know, right?) That means I know you want to do the right thing. And it means this GAR truly has something we can work with here. Show me what I am requesting from you. Then as you requested of me, I promise to be patient with you and explain things to you when you ask me questions. If you are willing to improve the article, I will be willing to help you do it. I want this article to be GA. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Continued review

Copy editing the Synopsis

Matty.007, as I have already said, the plot is not OK, it is too long, and it needs to be tightened to be consistent with the guidelines of WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE, other completed Tintin articles, and the GA criteria. If you wish to bring this article to GA, you need to commit to the idea of doing some work. The article was not ready for GA in the state you first found it. I will be very proud to give you the GA after you continue to put forth a sincere effort. I appreciate you saying you'll have a look at the other articles and what needs to be done for this article. While I understand that the task of adding new material to the article could be difficult for you without access to the usual sources, I would think you can help with the task of removing extraneous material. I do believe you have what it takes to edit this article for GA. Perhaps it should be copy edited as follows. I truly want to answer your queries, so what do you think, do you agree these are improvements?

• First paragraph: Change "... Massif in the Himalayas" to "... Massif in the Himalayas of Tibet."
• First paragraph: Change "... calling for help from the wreckage of a crashed plane, and learns that Chang was on a plane that crashed in Tibet" to "... calling for help from the wreckage of the crashed plane."
• Change Tharkey to Tharkey.
• Change "from Nepal to the crash site" to "from Nepal towards the crash site".
• Second paragraph: Change "... abandon the group in fear due to a supposed Yeti footprint" to "... abandon the group in fear when mysterious Yeti tracks are found.

Isn't this a bit POV? Matty.007

No. While writing for an encyclopedia must be neutral, good writing is allowed. It is not going out on a limb to write that tracks of a mythological creature are "mysterious". Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change it. Matty.007 17:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Second paragraph: Change "... saw the Yeti and convinces him that the area is just too large to search" to "... saw the Yeti and convinces him to abandon his rescue, as the area is just too large to search."
• Second paragraph: Change "... Tintin spots a scarf on a cliff face, and concludes Chang is near" to "... Tintin spots a scarf on a cliff face, concludes Chang is near, and continues on, with the Captain."
• Second paragraph: Change "... drops his knife, alerting Tharkey, who saves them" to "... drops his knife, alerting Tharkey, who had returned to them."
• Second paragraph: Remove "That night, a storm blows away their tent, and Haddock rips their other tent."
• Second paragraph: Change "... forcing them to trek onwards, unable to sleep lest they freeze. They eventually arrive within sight of the Buddhist monastery of Khor-Biyong before collapsing due to exhaustion" to "They trek onwards, unable to sleep lest they freeze, arriving within sight of the Buddhist monastery of Khor-Biyong before collapsing due to exhaustion".

I think it is fine as it is, this would make for quite a long sentence. Matty.007

I am documenting that this is the third time you have argued against doing work, when a reviewer has suggested otherwise, insisting "is fine the way it is". Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Keeping count of how many times I have disagreed with you is pointless, and not going to help anything. Either argue for this sentence's inclusion, and make a point for the change, or leave it. Matty.007 17:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you still have a question about making this improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Putting in "They trek onwards, unable to sleep lest they freeze" isn't going to make a lot of sense if there is no info about the tents being broken. Matty.007 19:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

All right then, keep what you believe is important to keep, but try not present it in an entire sentence, as that takes too much room. Try to keep what you believe is important to keep by adding just a few words to what I propose above, or in other words, try to accomplish both your goal and our shared goal of shortening the synopsis. Prhartcom (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Second paragraph: Remove "An avalanche occurs, and they are buried in the snow."

Why? Matty.007

Again, read WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking to an essay as if it was policy is not helpful. In addition, I would say that "Necessary detail must be maintained" would apply here. Thanks, Matty.007 17:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Necessary detail is being maintained; they are unconscious in the snow; we don't need the avalanche. "The Odyssey contains various scenes where people recount myths to each other, and other such scenes of little importance to the main plot. If most of these get left out, or mainly consist of a sentence or two, that is not a problem." Do you see? In our synopsis, we put Tintin and the Captain unconscious in the snow. The reader gets it; they are in peril. I can understand why Hergé doubled down on the action, he had plenty of room to do so. But for us, we have a goal of shortening the section, so any repetition is going to be mercilessly cut. I don't believe our reader will feel the loss. I'm sure you agree by now? Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed, though against my better judgement. Matty.007 19:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Third paragraph: Change "... 'sees' Tintin, Snowy, Haddock and Tharkey" to ""sees" Tintin, Snowy, Haddock, and Tharkey" (change single quotes to double quotes and add serial comma).
• Third paragraph: Change "Tintin regains consciousness and, unable to reach the monastery himself, gives Snowy a note calling for help. Snowy lets go of the message when he finds a bone, but then realises what he's done, and runs to the monastery to find help. The monks head after him as he is recognised as the white dog in Blessed Lightning's vision" to "When Snowy runs to the monastery to find help, the monks think him a mad animal before they recognise him as the white dog from Blessed Lightning's vision."

I think the current version is fine. Matty.007

Fourth time. Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Argue your case. Being petty doesn't help me realise what is wrong with it as it is. Matty.007 17:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you still have a question about this improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed a little. Thanks, Matty.007 19:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We can keep either the "Tintin regains consciousness" or my suggestion "The monks think him a mad animal" but not both; you decide which is more important and edit my sentence above into as few words as possible. Prhartcom (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Third paragraph: Change "... and see the Grand Abbot" to "... and are brought before the Grand Abbot."
• Third paragraph: Change "After Tintin tells the Abbot why they are there, the Abbot tells Tintin to abandon his quest and return to his country. However, Blessed Lightning has another vision, through which Tintin learns that Chang is still alive inside a mountain cave near the Horn of the Yak" to "The Abbot tells Tintin to abandon his quest, but Blessed Lightning has another vision, through which Tintin learns that Chang is still alive inside a mountain cave at the Horn of the Yak".
• Third paragraph: Change , but that the "migou", or Yeti, is also there" to "—and that the "migou" is also there." (Note em dash, note double quotes correctly used.)
• Third paragraph: Change "Haddock is sceptical of the vision, but Tintin travels to Charabang, a small village near the Horn of the Yak. Haddock initially refuses to follow Tintin, but once again changes his mind and pursues him to Charabang, and the pair head to the Horn of the Yak" to "Tintin and Haddock travel on to the Horn of the Yak."
• Fourth paragraph: Change "They wait outside the cave until they see the Yeti leave" to "They find the cave."

Too unspecific about which cave, and too short a sentence. Matty.007

There is nothing wrong with a short sentence. Perhaps "They arrive at a cave."

Changed. Matty.007 17:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice we haven't implemented your idea of changing "the cave" to "a cave", which I agree your observation "too unspecific about which cave" is valid. Prhartcom (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Fourth paragraph: Change "and finds Chang, who is feverish and shaking" to "and finds Chang, feverish and shaking."
• Fourth paragraph: Change "The Yeti, finally revealed as a large anthropoid with an oval-shaped head, returns to the cave and reacts with anger upon seeing Tintin taking Chang away" to "The Yeti suddenly appears, finally revealed as a large anthropoid, reacting with anger at Tintin's attempt to take Chang away."
• Fourth paragraph: Change "As he reaches toward Tintin however, Tintin sets off the flash bulb of his camera, which scares the Yeti into fleeing" to "Tintin sets off the flash bulb of his camera, scaring the Yeti into fleeing."
• Fourth paragraph: Change "Tintin and Haddock carry Chang back to the village of Charabang, and he explains to them that the Yeti saved him after the crash" to "Chang explains that the Yeti saved his life after the crash."
• Fourth paragraph: Remove "Along the way, they briefly encounter the Yeti again, and he is scared again by Haddock blowing his nose." (Come on! That was an obvious one that clearly needed to be cut!)
• Fourth paragraph: Change "Chang, Tintin, and Haddock are met ceremonially by the Grand Abbot and an emissary group of monks, who present Tintin with a silk scarf in honour of the bravery he has shown, and the strength of his friendship with Chang" to "The Grand Abbot presents Tintin with a silk scarf in honour of the bravery he has shown for his friend Chang."
• Fourth paragraph: Remove "The monks take them back to Khor-Biyong, and after a week, when Chang has recovered, they return to Nepal by caravan.</s">
• Fourth paragraph: Change "... has a human soul, while the Yeti sadly watches ..." to "... has a human soul. The Yeti sadly watches ...".

If you agree, perhaps you can make these changes to the Synopsis section. If you request it, I will continue with this sentence-by-sentence advice on what needs copy editing in the History section next. This will bring us closer to GA. Good luck! P.S. Consider writing the new Adaptations section if you wish; you'd have free reign. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, I have been on a three day wikibreak, the reason I haven't done any work. Why have some of these been struck? Thanks, Matty.007 11:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Done all except specified above (and possible accidental ommission of one/two, but unlikely). Thanks, Matty.007 11:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The strike-throughs above are to show you what needs to be removed from the synopsis. The bolds above are to show you what needs to be added to the synopsis. I suggest you do so. I hope now you understand from this one section that all sections in this article need a lot of work. (You had said, "I cannot see that this needs a lot more work.") Note how other editors have been reading the To Do list and have been contributing positively to the article since you began this GAR. I suggest you also do so. Prhartcom (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read my comments? I implemented all the synopsis comments except when I specifically said. Please re-read my comments before posting. Thanks, Matty.007 15:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not noticed them. Replies above. After this section's copy editing is complete, it is time to closely examine the other sections. Agreed? Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, I find it easier to work like this. I'll have a look at your replies. Thanks, Matty.007 17:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me also, Matty.007. I am sorry if this is a wake-up call for you that there are reviewers like me out there. ;-) Believe me, I have learned myself; it is serious, this Wikipedia quality. Take another look at the To Do list. Re-read all of my suggestions to you (i.e you could write the Adaptations section). Edit for quality and originality. Do anything that greatly improves the article. More than anything else, Matty.007, what I need to see are edits that demonstrate an understanding of what makes a "good article". Surely one way the GA criteria can be achieved is by improving the quality of the article up to the level of the articles of books one through seven? Ask me any questions; that is no problem; I await your first question. As I said, I appreciate you and the expertise you no doubt bring to the table. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Added a little to Adaptations, but seems the same size as Cigars of the Pharaoh, The Blue Lotus, and others. I cannot see much about the adaptations online, so if there is anything it will likely be in a book. Thanks, Matty.007 18:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed that, comparing to the others, we are lucky that we don't have to create a big Adaptation section. I believe the perfect book would be The Pocket Essential Tintin by Lofficier, as it reviews all the Tintin adaptations.

Is there any reason there are 5 refs under the heading 'References' not being used? Thanks, Matty.007 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The article needs in-line references to those five books, as the authors of those books are among the greatest of the Tintin literary critics, or else the article is not "broad in its coverage." I'm sure, under normal circumstances, you would agree. I own all but those books. I recognize this is a problem and have been asking one friend of mine whom I believe owns the books to help. I'll take any suggestion. Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't got the books, so could you add the needed info from those? Thanks, Matty.007 19:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the wheels have been put into motion regarding this. Prhartcom (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the points I state above still need to be made to the article. When this is done, other sections need to be closely examined for copy editing also. Prhartcom (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I don't have too much time in the week, so will likely have another look at this at the weekend. Thanks, Matty.007 15:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that you have finished it, I have made improvements to the synopsis that makes it even tighter, adds and removes a few commas, and corrects a misspelling, some repetitious or awkward wording, and some actions described in the wrong order that you introduced (please be more careful). See if you like it. Prhartcom (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing the History section

• Re-read the sources of this section, ensuring the facts asserted in the prose matches the source, and re-read and tighten the prose if possible, ensuring it is accurate and is to-the-point with no extraneous data, is neutral, and is well-written.
  • Can't verify anything, except Thompson. Matty.007
• Explore idea of writing new sentences in the History section about Hergé and his friend Zhang Chongren (he was mentioned in the sources pertaining to this time in Hergé's history). "It was a source of massive regret that Chang had passed out of his life."

Chongren not mentioned in Thompson. Added a little. Matty.007

Why do you say that when I just gave you an example of one of the Thompson references to Chang, and then I see you use it? Prhartcom (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Chang is the character. Thompson makes absolutely no mention of Zhang Chongren. Matty.007 14:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Reading comprehension problem? I just said I gave you an example of Thompson mentioning him. (Note that Wikipedia uses a different romanised spelling of Hergé's friend's name.) Prhartcom (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Saying that Chang was based on Zhang would have made a lot more sense than trying to insult me. Matty.007 15:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That was after you disrespected me by standing in direct opposition to what I said. See my new section "Interpersonal communication" advice above. Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think there are too many quotes? The article seems to be forever saying "according to Harry Thompson, ..." and the like. Matty.007 11:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly so, let me take a close look at it. I like the copy editing you have done so far. Prhartcom (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Correct spelling error; "acquaint" is the correct spelling. (This is your second spelling error; "group" was the correct spelling. [1])

Thank you for correcting the typo. Matty.007 18:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

More later. Prhartcom (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am looking closely at the History section offline and will soon post the results here. The original contributors did a decent job writing History, but two things that stand out are: 1) it's all based almost entirely on one single source, Thompson, and 2) quoting him way too much (as you quite correctly observed). Those two points aside, there's also a couple of minor technical problems. So generally, those three points have to be changed, as they currently diminish the article, but of course we keep the rest. I am working out what to do now; making as few edits to the section as possible yet doing the work, yet getting it done. I'll post it here. Prhartcom (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Background and early ideas sub-section

• Change the people the reporter would once again meet with to Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans. (Wikilink)
  • Seems to be already done. Matty.007

• No, look at which article the link is pointing to and change it to the above, which is a more accurate article and is consistent with the link used in the Tintin in America article.

My apologies. Fixed. Matty.007

• Change "was "backward-looking"" to "would be a step backward."

Hergé's psychological issues sub-section

• Strike "and suffered a mental breakdown|nervous breakdown" (An overstatement)
• Remove the paragraph break that comes before ""At the time, I was going through..." so that this quote is part of the previous paragraph.
  • Couldn't find the bit you mean, sorry. Matty.007

• Probably because I inserted a comma. A paragraph in this sub-section begins with the phrase "At the time [please insert comma] I was going through". Do you see it? Look again, and when you find it, simply remove the paragraph break (and the little colon) before it, so that this quote is no longer the start of a new paragraph, but is the second-half of the previous paragraph—all one paragraph. You know, you combined two paragraphs in the lead the same way. Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Combined, but used blockquote as I believe is standard (sorry if wrong). Thanks, Matty.007
• I thought of using that too, but I realized that there are other Hergé quotes that we don't do that to, including just one sentence previous, so I decided to not highlight this one particular quote. Try it just plain and normal and I believe it looks better. Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I thought it was compulsory, as it was in the MOS (though MOS is a little shaky for me). Matty.007

• I found the relevant portion of the MOS and see what you mean. But we have another Hergé quote of the same length just one sentence prior, and another one elsewhere. Surely we are not going to do one quote one way and the other two another way? I'm very big on consistency. Prhartcom (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Added blockquote there too now. Thanks, Matty.007 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Fix the bracket error you caused. Prhartcom (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "psychoanalyst" is mentioned three times in two sentences. Keep only the first one (change second one to "professor", strike the third one).

Influences sub-section

• Change "... was due to his repeating dreams of whiteness, and as Harry Thompson noted, "Hergé's fundamental need was to draw a white, snowy adventure" that had to "be a solo voyage of redemption for Hergé." Thompson believed that it was because ..." to "... was due to Hergé's recurring dreams of whiteness—his fundamental need to create an adventure that "must be a solo voyage of redemption" from the "whiteness of guilt." It was because ..." (note ref)
• After mention of "Tintin only being accompanied by Snowy and Haddock", insert a paragraph break and move your new Chang paragraph here, immediately after the mention of the other characters, to be the second paragraph in this section. The ESP topic will then come after, in the third paragraph.
  • Sorry, what does ESP stand for? Thanks, Matty.007

• It stands for extra-sensory perception and you did this correctly; except you caused a little problem when you put a space before this paragraph starting with "Hergé", did you not see the problem it caused? Remove the space and it should fix it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Nope, didn't see that. Fixed. Thanks, Matty.007

• After "as much research into the cryptid as possible", strike "According to Harry Thompson,".
• Please remove all of the "(born - died)" year ranges from the History section, i.e.: "(1921–2010)". It's extraneous info; the reader can click on the link to learn this.
  • Attempted to remove all, but unsure if got all of them. Thanks, Matty.007

• You did; looks good. Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Publication sub-section

• Strike "and was VT-ORO, which no actual aircraft has ever had."

That's it for this section. (I may make further changes to the History section myself later, after this GA review is complete, but that is not applicable to this review.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Attempted fix of all except where specified. Thanks, Matty.007 16:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good. When you get this last little bit above, this section will be done. Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Attemped fix of remainder. Thanks, Matty.007 17:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing the Lead

• We must look closely at one last section: the lead. It may need to be copy edited; some words may need to be removed; we may need to occasionally get to the point faster; it may need tightening. Would you please take a look and see what you can do? Prhartcom (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortened a little, is it better now? Thanks, Matty.007 15:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind, may I say that I liked "An "intensely personal book" for Hergé, who would come to see it as his favourite of the Tintin adventures" better; that sentence reads with a nicer rhythm and feeling, and should be restored. Compare the two and you will see. There may be better phrases in this section to cut or rewrite? I haven't yet closely looked. The original writers' "written and drawn" is awkward and should probably be "created". I suppose we can keep how you combined the first and second paragraph. Please continue trying to tighten the lead if you can; thanks; I will get back to the other sections. More later. Prhartcom (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I combined them per the Tintin in the Congo FA, restored sentence, and I'll see if there's anything I can do to shorten. Thanks, Matty.007 15:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Two paragraphs do look better than one and I suppose it reads all right combined that way. Prhartcom (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read through this section one more time and make sure it is as tight and clear as possible. It may be fine the way it is, but just make doubly sure. (After all, the lead is the most important section.) Prhartcom (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't see what to cut (if anything), but I am not too good at cutting things. Matty.007 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'll look at it closely myself, then. Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please correct the following:

• Change ""intensely personal book"" to ""intensely personal" book" (move closing quote marks from after "book" to after "personal"). It was misquoted.
• Change "written and drawn" to "created".

Then this section is complete. Prhartcom (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing the Critical analysis section

• This section needs additional critical analysis from the usual literary critics: Apostolidès, Assouline, Goddin, McCarthy, Peeters, and Thompson. (Already have Lofficier and Farr.) (See my note above added today.) And I wish we could add another quote from Donald Lopez.

I am afraid I don't possess the books (apart from Thompson), but I will look into Thompson's anaylsis. Thanks, Matty.007 17:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that; like I asked you to read in the note above: I am working on this. I will reply back when it is complete. Prhartcom (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The good news is I have acquired six more Tintin analysis books in the last few weeks, and am busy now using them to write this section offline. If nothing seems to be happening it's because I am working on this. Wish me luck and I will write back here when it is done. Prhartcom (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added more content to this section. We are not as complete in this section as I would like, but it is good enough for now. (I will continue to work on it as I finish reading my new Tintin books, later after this review is complete). I'm glad we were able to get it to this level; it is an improvement over when we first arrived at this article. Prhartcom (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing the Awards section

• Change the entire Awards section to: "At a ceremony in in Brussels on 1 June 2006, the Dalai Lama bestowed the International Campaign for Tibet's Light of Truth Award upon the Hergé Foundation in recognition of Hergé's most personal adventure Tintin in Tibet, a book which brought Tibet to new audiences across the world. "For many, Hergé's depiction of Tibet was their introduction to the awe-inspiring landscape and culture of Tibet." said Tsering Jampa, Executive Director of the International Campaign for Tibet. "It is not a political book." observed BBC News. "Instead it tells the story of Tintin's friendship with a Chinese boy, Chang." During the awarding ceremony, copies of Tintin in Tibet in the Esperanto language (Tinĉjo en Tibeto) were distributed. Accepting on behalf of the Hergé Foundation, Hergé's widow Fanny Rodwell spoke, "We never thought that this story of friendship would have a resonance more than 40 years later".

Changed. Thanks, Matty.007 11:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; this section is done. Prhartcom (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing the Adaptations section

• Ensure this section is complete, and is the best that it can be, and is the way you like it.
• What's this about "a radio series and a video game in the 1990s, and then for the theatre in the 2000s" mentioned in the lead? And I believe that information is correct.

(Note exact references, hyperlinks.) Let me know if you have observations or questions. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Added in a bit on all of the above that I could find online. All OK now? Thanks, Matty.007 17:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you're saying this section is complete, is the best you can do, and is the way you like it? I believe it can be better. Please replace entire section with:

In 1991, Tintin in Tibet was adapted into an episode of The Adventures of Tintin television series by French studio Ellipse and Canadian animation company Nelvana. Directed by Stéphane Bernasconi, Thierry Wermuth voiced the character of Tintin. Tintin in Tibet also was an episode of the BBC Radio 4 series The Adventures of Tintin in 1992; Richard Pearce voiced Tintin. The book became a video game of the same name for PC and Game Boy in 1995.

Tintin and I (Tintin et moi) (2003), a documentary by Danish director Anders Høgsbro Østergaard based on the taped interview with Hergé by Numa Sadoul from 1971, explores the personal battles Hergé's experienced while creating Tintin in Tibet, clarifying how the events drove him to create what is now regarded as his most personal adventure.

As the 2007 centenary of Hergé's birth approached, Tintin remained popular. Tintin in Tibet was adapted into a musical theater production titled Hergé's Adventures of Tintin, showing from late 2005 until early 2006 at the Barbican Arts Centre. The production was directed by Rufus Norris and was adapted by Norris and David Greig; Tintin was performed by Russell Tovey. The show was successfully revived at the Playhouse Theatre in the West End of London before touring through 2007. In 2010, the television channel Arte filmed an episode of its documentary series Sur les traces de Tintin (On the traces of Tintin) in the Nepalese Himalayas, exploring the inspiration and setting of Tintin in Tibet. Between May and September 2012, the Musée Hergé in Louvain-la-Neuve hosted an exhibition themed around the book entitled Into Tibet with Tintin.

More later. Prhartcom (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Changed, thank you for the addition of information from books. Sorry if I miss anything, please tell me if something needs doing urgently. Thanks, Matty.007 18:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that you have finished it, I have made one additional improvement to the Adaptation section (and some other fixes). Thanks, this section is done. Prhartcom (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Final check

• Spell check: I checked article's spelling in a spell checker (there are many free ones on the Internet). Some of these below are to change from US to UK spelling. Please correct the following misspelled words:

Katmandu -> Kathmandu

skeptical -> sceptical

sherpa -> Sherpa

imperiling -> imperilling

Air-India -> Air India (multiple occurrences)

• Add wikilink to first occurrence of "Air India" (remove any others).
• Synopsis section: Change "After losing their tent they trek onwards" to "They lose their tent and must trek onwards".
• Publication sub-section: Change "A frame from" to "A panel from".
• Adaptations section: Change "based on taped interviews with Hergé" to "based on the taped interview with Hergé".

Please complete these and we will do a final review. Prhartcom (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Done all Prhartcom. Thanks, Matty.007 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be hard to see my other comments above, perhaps look at history of this page to see them. Prhartcom (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Prhartcom: sorry, now done all (I think). Thanks, Matty.007 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

See above, "They lose their tent..." Prhartcom and more, right above. See it? (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Got it all now? Thanks, Matty.007 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, this article is now GA! Prhartcom (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

References