Talk:The Calculus Affair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:JolyonWagg.jpg[edit]

Image:JolyonWagg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover[edit]

The article currently states "The cover of the album appears to be viewed through the center of a sunflower with its yellow petals surrounding the main illustration. This is in reference to the professor's name, as Professeur Tournesol, the French name for Professor Calculus, means Professor Sunflower.".

I'd always thought that the cover was meant to be seen through a broken pane of glass, as broken glass features so largely in the plot... 82.109.186.194 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Wilhelm Reich[edit]

I've removed this passage because it is copied verbatim from [1]. It's questionable anyway because it is repeated as a speculation in this book alone; other books on Tintin don't assert it. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, what is this book you have found on Google Books? I believe it is the Wikipedia Tintin book containing all the Tintin articles: Book:Hergé and Tintin. That is why it is verbatim; it was published from the Wikipedia articles themselves including the article The Calculus Affair. It's good that it was removed anyway because there was no cited reference for that supposed information. Prhartcom (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing them, I believe you are correct, so it's safe to say this passage isn't coming back. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topolino's house[edit]

Do any of the sources identify the specific house? It looks like 113 route de Saint-Cergue. Opera hat (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Calculus Affair/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hergé continued The Adventures of Tintin with The Red Sea Sharks, while the series itself became a defining part of the Franco-Belgian comics tradition." How about "Hergé continued The Adventures of Tintin with The Red Sea Sharks, and the series as a whole became a defining part of the Franco-Belgian comics tradition." The "while" seems to suggest a temporal relationship
Done. Changed as asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critically well-received, various commentators" Various commentators were critically well-received?
Done. Changed as asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conference in nuclear physics" Aren't conferences on topics rather than in them?
Done. Changed as asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " further echoing the fact that espionage thrillers were proving popular in France and Belgium." I'm not clear what you mean by "further echoing", here.
    • I've changed this to "also being published at a time in which" Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Background section is a little light; it seems to skip over key information including the original publication format/location. When you say "Started in December 1954", do you mean the writing process or the publication? [Sorry, I see now that this information is in a separate section- I still think a little more context could be provided.]
Done. Tweaked the "Started in December 1954" part.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is L'Écho illustré worth a link? Also, is that a publisher or a periodical?
    • It was a magazine; the term "publisher" is used here to explain that it was this magazine which published The Adventures of Tintin in Switzerland. I've re-worded this to better reflect the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a citation for the quote in the image caption- quotes should never go unreferenced!
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were critical about the inclusion" I think you mean critical of
Done. Changed as asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preceding two-part moon adventure" Links?
Done. Linked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "believed that The Calculus Affair aptly illustrates how Tintin is no longer political in the manner that he was in early works like" The tense shift is very jarring here
Done. Changed as asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear to me what the source of File:Hotel Cornavin.jpg. Other images might raise some eyebrows at FAC, but I'm not going to kick up a fuss here.
  • The sources are great. I note that you twice link Peeters's name in the bibliography but only link Farr's once. Consistency would be good!
Done. Delinked second instance of Peeters link.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methuen is not mentioned outside of the infobox/categories. Also, do we have a category for Casterman?
    • I don't know if we have any reliable sources that actively say that the first English-language translation was published in 1960 by Methuen, but this information can be ascertained by consulting the opening pages of the volume. That being the case, I'm not entirely sure what to do here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Josh, it's appreciated. Is there anything else that you feel needs addressing at this stage in the article's development? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the Commons user's other uploads, they are the author of the hotel image, so I'm willing to let that slide. I'm satisfied with your responses, so I'll promote this now. An engaging read. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Platz der Republik[edit]

Platz der Republik was in West Berlin I think, Farr probably meant Alexanderplatz, but I don't have access to his book. Alexanderplatz had the *Palast* der Republik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Calculus_Affair&oldid=1210346526"