Talk:The Broken Ear/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 23:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I will review this one. Comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The way the second half of the second paragraph is currently written suggests it is referring to The Black Island.
  • Oops, silly error on my behalf. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• "The Adventure introduces...": The Broken Ear introduces...?
  • Changed, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• In the lead, it is mentioned that this book was the first to be fully plotted in advance; this fact doesn't appear in the main body of the article. There is reference to the plot in the Critical analysis but in a slightly different context.
  • I have changed the introductory sentence to specify that this is the first Adventure to include fictional countries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Background and research

• As he did with the first three Tintin stories, did Wallez give some direction to Herge in relation to Broken Ear?
  • No, by this point Wallez had been forced to resign following a scandal. He remained Herge's friend, but was no longer an influence on his work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Would your sources support a sentence to that effect, to be inserted following the mention of Tintin in America? Something like: "The Broken Ear was the first Tintin adventure completed without input from Wallez, who had resigned as editor when Herge started work on the story." The way it presently stands, I think some readers will have the same question I did and by adding the proposed sentence (or a variant), you help head that off. Just a thought. Zawed (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I found the correct references and added a sentence in explaining that Wallez had been forced to resign prior to The Broken Ear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• "...due to similarities in the respective ...": ...due to similarities in their respective...? </>

Original publication

• Any information on the public reception to Broken Ear upon publication?

Second version, 1943

• "...here the use of colour of more basic than in later volumes...": ...the use of colours was more basic than in later volumes...?

Late publications and legacy

• Any sales figures for the book?
  • Unfortunately not. I'm not even sure if such things have survived from 1930s Belgium; if they have, they certainly haven't been published in the Anglophone Tintinological literature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Critical analysis

• "a "tintinian" anthropology": I just want to check that this should not be "Tintinian"?
  • It's definitely lower case; it would make better grammatical sense to be upper case in my opinion, but it is what it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff

• No duplicate links.
• One dab link: The Maltese Falcon.
• Image tags looks appropriate.
• External links work OK.

A nice article overall, the issues noted above are pretty minor. The Tintin books were one of my favorites as a kid. I had meant to review the Blue Lotus book when it was put up for GA review, but got beaten to it. I'm glad I got to this one in time! Zawed (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Zawed, it is much appreciated. I will endeavor to fix the problems that you have highlighted over the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)