# Talk:Red Rackham's Treasure

The article now states that Tintin insists that Haddock must purchase the estate, which is up for auction, but the Captain is short on funds due to the wasted expense of their failed treasure hunt.  Is this correct according to the Wnglish translation?  In the new Swedish translation, which is known to be faithful to the French original, Haddock only says that had he found the treasure, the problem would have been solved, not that he had had the money before the treasure hunt. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. This has been corrected. —Prhartcom (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The History/Background section of this article contains well-written text that is truly the history of the entire Adventures of Tintin series. For that reason, this section has been removed from this article and moved to the The Adventures of Tintin article. See the talk page there. —Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"...suggested that the scene in which the shark submarine pushes between Haddock's buttocks was a form of sexual innuendo referencing anal sex,..."
So if a noted critic makes an absolutely preposterous statement - laughably ridiculous - then it's ok as a reference? So if I can find a reference to an ongoing theme of suppressed homo-erotica between Tintin and Captain Haddock - that would be ok too? Anything goes, so long as it's been published somewhere? That's mad. Jabberwock359 (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm assuming good faith so personally I don't have a problem with it. To me, most literary criticism seems mad but, because I'm not a literary critic, I don't feel qualified to comment. I would say that, unless it's WP:Fringe (which I don't think it is, if well-cited to a respected individual - Tom McCarthy (writer)) it's ok for it to stay IMO... —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Jabberwock359, here is a book that discusses homo-erotica between Tintin and Captain Haddock; the author is notable scholar Jean-Marie Apostolidès. I know. If it helps, this literary critic and McCarthy mentioned above are not exactly discussing the characters of Tintin but are using them as a vehicle to do psychoanalysis. It's part of the response to the book so it is included here (they are in the Response section to all well-researched Tintin articles). I personally find it preposterous and so do others, but to meet the GA requirement of "broad in its coverage" the article should include applicable references to all of the ten or so books in the English language discussing Tintin. Thanks for your comment, actually; others may have the same question and can come here to find it. Prhartcom (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I must echo the views of Prhartcom and others; I think it unlikely that Hergé had intended this scene to have a homo-erotic subtext (not that it's impossible), but we have a reputable commentator writing in a reliable source suggesting it, and thus mention of it belongs in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm?  thanks, I must remember that reliable sources have reputable idiots!! Jabberwock359 (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red Rackham's Treasure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review- I always enjoy reading these Tintin articles. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"the duo had discovered the coordinates to what they believe is the treasure aboard the sunken 17th century vessel" Why this tense? Are you referring to the happenings of the previous book?
Yes, these refer to the events in The Secret of the Unicorn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to "the duo discovers"; it still works in context. Prhartcom (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"John-O.88" What is/was this ship? In addition, shouldn't ship names be italicised? I'm not sure.
I've italicised the name of the boat and added that it was a trawler, as is specified in Farr. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"The brief appearance of Dr Daumière, who warns Haddock to cease drinking alcohol, was an allusion to Hergé's own physician, Dr Daumerie." Shouldn't these be "Dr."? Also, do you misspell the name of the comedian?
Both corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the frame that is Hergé's favourite does not appear next to the text discussing it is slightly jarring. I also wonder if more details of why Hergé liked it may be useful in the caption? Now I think about it, I'm not sure why this information is in the inspirations section.
Agreed; it would be ideal if the image was directly adjacent to the relevant text. However, given the current structure of the page, I'm unsure that that could be achieved without the whole thing looking like a clunky mess. I also see what you mean about this passage being included in the Inspirations section (which I have just renamed "Influences", which is in keeping with other articles in this series); however I am unsure as to where else it could be placed, and feel that it is too small to be placed in a new sub-section all of its own. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
After some thought, I've moved it to the publication section, where it seems to fit. I wonder if the information about the "firsts" in this book might better fit in an "influence" section; alternatively, the adaptation section could become a "legacy" section or something. Just something to think on. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Is Thomson and Thompson, Detectives worth redlinking? I suspect there will be some literature on it out there somewhere?
The (English-language) information on it is very scant so I'd be sceptical as to whether a whole article could be put together on it. I'm not completely averse to redlinking it here, but I am not convinced of its necessity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Why do you use "Critical analysis" as the section title? I wonder if "Literary analysis" or simply "Analysis" may work better?
You make an interesting (and valid) point, although we use "Critical analysis" in FA-level articles like Tintin in the Congo and Tintin in Tibet, so I'd be inclined to follow their example lest we end up with great variation among the different articles on The Adventures of Tintin. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
As a general note, I don't really like the use of "asserted". It has a rather negative connotation- I suspect that the authors' views are carefully considered and argued for (or at least explained), rather than merely asserted. At the very least, "claimed" or "stated" will probably come across as less critical.
I've replaced the two instances of "asserted" in the Critical analysis section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The names of the TV series, and perhaps wikilinks, would be useful in the adaptations section.
Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have reworded the sentences of the Adaptations section to explicitly mention the titles of the series, as we do in other Tintin articles. Prhartcom (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"In the 1979 American drama film Kramer vs. Kramer, Dustin Hoffman's character, Ted Kramer, is shown reading Red Rackham's Treasure to his son.[53]" This sounds like trivia, even if sourced. Does it definitely need to be included?
I don't particularly think so, but I think it best to check with User:Prhartcom (who sourced it and has been a significant contributor to this article) before removing it, to see if they have any objections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently both of us thought the other one wanted it kept, when neither of us did. This diff shows it was added seven years ago, this diff shows User:Ssven2 (who was only trying to support us) adding the source. I have just cut it. Prhartcom (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If I was going to be particularly critical (and this would be more of a FAC review than a GAC review), I would say that the influences section is a little listy, and that analysis section could be better organised thematically, rather than by author. The text is sometimes a tiny bit repetitive, but I'm happy that the prose and structuring is at GA level for the most part.
The sources all look excellent (with the possible exception of Tintinologist.com, which, as I say, seems to only be there to cite something trivial). Perhaps you could add the author to the IGN review. Images seem appropriate from a content and license perspective. (Perhaps you could consider adding an image of the supposedly homoerotic panel? Certainly not essential, but something to think on, perhaps.) Great work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Josh; let me now if you wish to debate some of my responses, or if you have any other recommendations for this page. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The Influences section and the Tintinologist.com reference is finally gone. The author has been added to the IGN review. I think this is the second time a reviewer has made the observation that the Critical analysis section should be organised thematically so we should probably consider it next time. As well, I once pointed out that a reviewer once suggested that it be in the present tense (J Milburn, what are your thoughts about that?). Prhartcom (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the tenses- I'm honestly not sure. I have sympathy for both alternatives. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fine; I believe it works both ways; Tintin in Tibet Critical analysis uses the present tense. Prhartcom (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the mention of the favourite frame, and clarified the happenings in the plot section. If you're happy with that, I'm happy to promote, as this is a very strong article, definitely worthy of GA status. The outstanding comments are things to think on and/or clarify before FAC, if you're aiming that way. Very enjoyable read. (By the way, in case you haven't seen it, I recently came across doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12024- possibly some material of relevance for your various Tintin articles.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are happy with the article as it looks now- some things to think about going forward (either for this article or Tintin articles in general, but the article makes a nice GA right now. (As an aside, I wonder if we could think about some other way to deal with plot details from a separate work- a footnote, maybe, if we don't want to "break character". Just something to think about.) In any case- a great read, and some very nice research. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive one edit summary I made in a recent edit to the Plot synopsis, changing another editor's contribution. I did not mean to communicate in the edit summary that "in-universe is good". Far from it, as I understand what is recommended in MOS:PLOT. I meant to revert one change because a) it redundantly mentioned the title of the previous Tintin book in the plot synopsis when we already stated the previous Tintin book in the plot synopsis (in a descriptive sentence that opens the section) and also b) because I believe every plot synopsis can be written without undue reference to the "real world". I believe reference to the real world can and should occur at the beginning of a plot synopsis, especially a story that spans more than one volume or article, as this grounds the plot synopsis that the reader is about to read. But I believe that such reference should be limited to the opening of the plot synopsis section, and should be avoided once the plot synopsis is underway. After the story is underway, I believe a sudden re-mentioning of the real world (certainly in the middle of a paragraph) "breaks character", is a sign of poor writing, and should be avoided. Avoiding it allows the reader to simply focus on the plot and characters for the remainder of the paragraph or section, but again, only after the reader has already been grounded at the beginning of the section. Prhartcom (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

J Milburn, what did you mean on the GA Talk page about possibly needing a footnote? Don't you think the message at the top of the Synopsis is very clear about where the plot belongs in context? Prhartcom (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
My concern is that the current wording (even including the hatnote) doesn't make clear that the following sentence - After reading three parchments authored by Haddock's ancestor, Sir Francis Haddock, the duo discovered the coordinates to what they believe is the treasure aboard the sunken 17th century vessel, the Unicorn. - refers to the happenings in a different work. Perhaps it could be more more clear by changing the tense slightly further- "Having previously read three...". Alternatively (or additionally) a note could be added to clarify that this particular point refers to events in another work. The normal method, reflecting (I suspect) the expectation of readers, would be to only outline the plot of this work in the plot section. I can't promise I have a perfect answer to this, but I'm not convinced that the current approach is ideal. (This is a small point- note that I was happy to promote the article with this issue outstanding!) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I see now what you mean. And don't worry about how small the point is—in doing the final editing of many of Midnightblueowl's incredibly well-researched and well-written works, I have occasionally been a bit of a perfectionist. The "Having previously read three..." idea is the direction I was trying to go, that is, in a single sentence, restating a key plot point from the previous book so that we can explicitly refer to it in this plot summary. I don't think it can go unsaid and I'm quite certain we can accomplish this without clumsily stating it happened in the last book. I have tried a couple of times to get it right and you have tried once; would you care to insert this phrase and see how it fits? Prhartcom (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that the wreck of the Unicorn was based on any pictures of the Vasa as the latter wasn’t recovered until the 1960s. 78.71.246.102 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Comment moved from the GA review page. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Red Rackham the same guy as the pirate Jack Rackham? --91.34.33.227 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)