Talk:King Ottokar's Sceptre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• "A man who then organises to meet Tintin is found unconscious, following which the reporter receives a threatening note and then a bomb attack, which is intercepted by the police detectives Thomson and Thompson" I'm afraid I don't follow.
  • Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Forcibly ejected from the plane" By whom?
  • By the pilot; I've clarified this in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'm struggling to understand the utility of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1976-033-20, Anschluss sudetendeutscher Gebiete.jpg
  • (talk page stalker) - if I may, this picture gives an idea of the how the political reality fed into the writer's drawings and provided visual inspiration. The same idea is also in play in several other Tintin GAs. Brigade Piron (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that Brigade Piron has hit the nail right on the head there, and I second their views on the utility of this particular image. Note the similar use of such imagery over at the FA Tintin in the Land of the Soviets and the GA Tintin in America. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer an image showing the Anschluss, if possible, but I have no objection to it remaining. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I've replaced that image with another depicting a scene of the Anschluss. Hope that looks okay ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• It'd be good if you could cite the old psychology paper
• Why Fascist?
  • In the passage in question, I refer to the "Nazi Hitler" and the "Fascist Mussolini". Although I appreciate that there is still some debate on the matter of whether Nazism can be categorised as a form of fascism, most political analysts and historians seem to take the view that it is; thus both Hitler and Mussolini could be deemed small-f fascists. However, I chose the capital-F here to reflect that Mussolini led the National Fascist Party – I shall make this more explicit in the text itself. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Tecnica del Colpo di Stato (The Technique of a Coup d'Etat)" For consistency with the paper names, I think you need speech marks here.
  • Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Eastern Europe?
  • Personally I think that it reads better being capitalised, although I recognise that others might differ from me on that. I'm happy to discuss it; are there any Wiki policies on the matter ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • If you're happy, I am- I note that our article capitalises, so you're probably right. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• "The concept of a fictional East European kingdom had similarities with that of Ruritania, which appeared in Anthony Hope's novel The Prisoner of Zenda (1894) and its film adaptations in 1913, 1915, 1922, and 1937, of which Hergé might have been aware." Slightly clumsy- also, worth linking the films?
  • Agreed; I've changed the prose and added the links. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Tintin En Syldavie (Tintin in Syldavia)" Again?
  • Good point. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Cœurs Vaillants" Probably notable enough for a redlink?
  • I'm not a fan of redlinks, but you have a point. Done. :) Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I like redlinks, but I bump into more and more people who dislike them. The other option is knocking up a quick article- do you read French? J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) I speak and read French, and I have created a stub of the Cœurs Vaillants article using material from the French article (and other ready sources), and I agree with J Milburn in this case that the red link was appropriate here (and in other Tintin articles), even though I am normally in agreement with Midnightblueowl about red links. Prhartcom (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Well done Prhartcom; good move! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Hergé renamed the character Nestor Alembick to Hector Alembick because his recurring character Nestor had been introduced in The Secret of the Unicorn." Could this be rephrased? You've not mentioned that character by name yet.
  • Changed. I think that the new sentence is much clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1976, archaeologists discovered a sceptre belonging to a 13th-century King Ottokar in St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague.[41]" Interesting- do any of the sources say anything more about this?
  • Sadly not, and I do feel that it is a bit trivia-like... The sources only mention it because of the unusual coincidental similarities with the story. Do you think it needs inclusion ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It's probably not essential, but the fact that a couple of good sources have mentioned it... You could relegate it to an end note, perhaps. I don't mind it for GA purposes, but people may gripe at FAC. Short paragraphs don't go down well, as I suspect you know! J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I might stick it in the "Critical analysis" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Jean-Marc and Randy Lofficier" I don't like the way you link two names to one person's article
  • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• There are some tense shifts in the Critical analysis section
  • Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Tintin fans would adopt the Syldavian language that appears in the story and use it to construct grammars and dictionaries, akin to the fan following of Star Trek's Klingon and Tolkien's Elvish." Very interesting point, but the tense is a little odd. Any more information about this? Any publications from linguists, for instance?
  • (talk page stalker) I have added one web source ("Hergé's Syldavian: A grammar" by Mark Rosenfelder, 1996) to the bibliography for this (which was actually in the article elsewhere), I have added a link to Wikipedia's Syldavian language article, I have added a new book to the bibliography for this (The Dictionary of Made-Up Languages: From Elvish to Klingon by Stephen D. Rogers, 2011), and there already is the Lofficier cited reference. (I have not fixed the tense.) Prhartcom (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • And I have also now fixed the tense. Prhartcom (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few changes- please do check them. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• They look good. Do you have further comments for this GA review? Prhartcom (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-free content use

• I'm afraid I'm not seeing how File:Tintin en Syldavie.jpg meets the NFCC. While a single cover image is generally held to be OK, I can't see any reason to have a second.
  • I would argue that this particular image adds to the overall appearance of the article, and is in itself informative. As an example of why I think that it should stay, I would cite the FA-quality article on Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, where we have both an image of the book cover and an image of the original newspaper supplement in which the comic strip first appeared. Why not do the same here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • At a glance, I'm surprised that got through FAC without a challenge. The question has got to be what this particular image adds to this particular article. I'm afraid "overall appearance" cannot be a justification for a non-free image. (If you want that, we have free pictures of at least some of the people you mention.) If you had some sourced analysis of the respective covers, or how the comics were advertised, or the difference in art style between the two versions then you could justify the inclusion of both covers, but without that, I'm not convinced both can be used. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) J Milburn could be right about that. The justification to use it is how clearly the image shows the original name of the adventure, before it was renamed, a fact that is mentioned in the prose. I have completed the file's description page and I wrote this justification into the image caption. Prhartcom (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • But we don't need a non-free image in order to show what a previous name was. As you say, the article already says this. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
          • You may be right that this could be challenged for FA. This is GA. For that, it meets requirements. Prhartcom (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I have not argued that this would be challenged at FAC. I have argued that it does not meet the NFCC, which is definitely a part of the criteria. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • If you definitely think that it needs to go, then it needs to go. Just say the word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Unless there's a further justification than those offered in this discussion, I feel it has to go. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry too. I wish to remain respectful, and I will step aside if I am asked to by Midnightblueowl, but I am pushing back on this. The image shows the original name of the adventure, before it was renamed, which supports what is asserted in the article text. Remember, many experts looked at the Soviets article during its FA review and never mentioned the Le Petit Vingtième cover. I would like to canvas a few others and get their opinion; do you have any objection? Or would you please relent? Prhartcom (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Look, I'm sorry, but that just isn't an argument that holds any water, and I've already explained why. I don't mean to be patronising, but I'll go over it again. "The image shows the original name of the adventure, before it was renamed, which supports what is asserted in the article text." It does. So what? Are you honestly suggesting that readers couldn't comprehend that the name was different in old versions? Per the non-free content criteria, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If the understanding being added here relates primarily to the name, then the addition is minimal, as the name can perfectly easily be expressed in the writing. This also means that the image fails NFCC#1, as the non-free image is replaceable with free text. You're welcome to ask for a third opinion - WP:NFCR or WT:NFCC would be the place to do it - but I can assure you that you're wasting your time unless there is some deeper reason for the inclusion of this image which has been expressed neither here nor in the rationale. J Milburn (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
              • All right, thank-you for the explanation, you're not being patronising and I hope you know I'm being respectful. I suspect Midnightblueowl will go ahead and remove the image. In the meantime while the image is unused before it is deleted I will go ahead and learn more about it by asking a few others. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Well that leaves me in a bit of a quandary. I won't have access to internet for a week or so, so I'll leave it up to you two to decide this between yourselves and act accordingly. Maybe other editors should be consulted ? Midnightblueowl (talk)
            • Ok- as you've both mentioned it, I have requested some more voices. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Came to throw my 2 cents in. For background, I'm mildly experienced with GA review and highly experienced with non-free content. In this case, I agree with User:J Milburn, the image fails WP:NFCC#8. The front page/cover is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. We do not need to see this image to understand this section. Although it may add to the visual quality of the article, it does not add any encyclopedic value and the article would remain a strong piece without the image. If you feel that the image is important, you can always provide an external link or use {{External media}}. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with JMilburn and TLSuda above - the image fails NFCC#8, as you have text information that mentions that work's existance and original name. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User:JMilburn: Why did you say it would fail a different criteria than the one that these say? And why did you suggest I go open a topic at WT:NFCC, which I did, and then you yourself open a topic there further down, forcing an editor to delete mine? Prhartcom (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

First question: I mentioned NFCC#1 and NFCC#8, while Masem and TLSuda focussed on NFCC#8, without explicitly mentioning NFCC#1, but we're all basically saying the same thing. Second question: I opened a thread on WP:NFCR, not WT:NFCC- I was not aware that you had opened a thread anywhere- my apologies if you feel I have dismissed your request, as that certainly was not my intention. (I am not responsible for other editors' actions. You will have to ask the editor who deleted your message about their intentions, if you feel that the edit was problematic.) J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed both this image and the image in the Critical analysis section (as it was also under attack) from the article. Perhaps Brigade Piron can help us find a few suitable free images. Let's put this behind us. I am willing to complete the GA review while Midnightblueowl is away. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Benoit Peeters 20100329 Salon du livre de Paris 3.jpg is a great picture, if you're looking for some visual interest. File:Pierre Assouline-2009.jpg is another possibility. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just that, if you didn't know, this image is already being used in almost every single FA or GA Tintin article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

More comments

• I appreciate the further information on the British Journal of Psychology paper, but the paper doesn't seem to exist. I can't find any reference to "Syldavia" or "General foreign policy" in the BJP, and the only article by Richardson in 1937 is Richardson, L. F. (1937). "Hints from Physics and Meteorology As to Mental Periodicities". British Journal of Psychology. General Section. 28 (2): 212. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1937.tb00870.x.
  • I see what you mean. I have been at that search engine for the last hour trying everything I could to make the article referenced by the sources come up, but had to give up. Disappointing isn't it; we could have referenced it with the doi citation. Farr's book says, "In 1937, in the British Journal of Psychology, an article written by someone called Richardson entitled 'General Foreign Policy' has an account of a hypothetical conflict between a small kingdom and an annexing power, identified as Syldavia and Borduria. Somehow, in some form, Hergé must have come across this. It is a striking example of how wide Hergé cast his net in his search for ideas." The other source mirrors these facts and gives Richardson's first name. Clearly, during Farr's research, he found the article that we could not. The only two explanations I can come up with are that the article we seek is not being included by this search engine, or the 1937 Richardson article with the different name that we did find is the one we want (we can't read the article). I suppose we'll just have to go on referencing this passage the way we currently are. Prhartcom (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, seems we aren't the only people who've butted heads over this issue. Take a look at endnote 7 of chapter 12 of Hergé, Son of Tintin (p. 352). Peeters writes

      "In an article by Georges Laurenceau ("La Suldavie et la Bordurie," Les Cahiers de la bande dessinée, nos. 14-15, Hergé special, 51-2), the creation of the names of Syldavia and Borduria was attributed to a theoretical text by one Richardson, entitled Generalized Foreign Policy and published in 1937. In this essay, in which he systematically studied the problem of the arms race, Richardson created Syldavia and Borduria to make his demonstration clearer. However, no researcher has confirmed this source, which has always intrigued me. Authentication made: Lewis Fry Richardson (1881-1953), mathematician and designer of one of the first models of weather prediction, did indeed publish a text entitled "Generalized Foreign Politcs: A Story in Group Psychology," in The British Journal of Psychology Monograph Supplements, 1939, no. 23, Cambridge University Press. But though there was indeed a rivalry of two theoretical states, the names Syldavia and Borduria do not appear (we have seen that Hergé himself first wrote of "Sylduria"). The actual date of the first publication, 1939, moreover, makes it unlikely that it was a source of material for King Ottokar's Scepter."

    • Looks like this may be a myth. I recommend that this whole issue is hashed out in the article, as this kind of academic disagreement makes for interesting reading! J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Fascinating! Thanks to M. Peeters for his research! And to you for finding it! I located the endnote in that book also; I hadn't noticed it before. Now back to reality: I returned to the search engine, and it does not confirm the existence of the 1939 article Peeters found. I returned to the article to write of this, but it turned out not to be as interesting as it first sounded (because the essence of the tale is: Tintin scholars claimed that the country names were not Hergé's idea, but they were). I tried writing it anyway; see what you think (you may edit the passage directly if you wish). Prhartcom (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The Scepter of Ottokar IV; Casterman changed this to King Ottokar's Sceptre" Could we have these titles in the original language, too?
  • Happy to oblige, but are we sure that is what we want? There would be four similar titles (the French title looks nearly identical to the English) one right after the other, and remember a fifth immediately follows in the start of the next sentence. A little redundant, right? Prhartcom (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, this article's looking fantastic. I have no objection to the picture of Peeter's being removed or replaced with another free image. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate this thoroughness! Prhartcom (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

J Milburn, is there anything else this article needs to be GA? I notice we are down to fixing rogue apostrophes! Prhartcom (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is there- I'll give it another quick look through and hopefully promote later this afternoon. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me know if there is anything I can do for the article, and thanks again! Prhartcom (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've promoted the article. Great work everyone, pleasure working with you. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)