These are all elements from Verne's books as well. Are these more compelling?
Compelling as what? I'm not sure where this discussion can go, really; I've tried to show that re-using elements, incidents and even whole plots is not uncommon, and in no way is a bench-mark by which it's possible to categorize the qualities of an author.
There is a distinct difference to me between an author or artist taking and reusing someone else's work verbatim and passing it off as their own, and (as would seem to be the case here) taking themes and ideas, and working with them again.
Take Shakespeare; virtually none, if any, of his his plays have stories which he himself thought up - he borrowed from stories, the subject of other plays, and historical sources. Even Hamlet
, as I've mentioned before, is just his re-write of Amleth
, an earlier work. Does that in way reflect on what we get from Shakespeare's work? Is he in anyway, shape or form diminished in talent because of that? Probably not.
Jules Verne didn't invent spectroscopy, radiation, or space-borne rocks and their impact on the earth and life here, they were the hot topics of the scientific community - notable figures such as Lord Kelvin were keenly interested in how meteor impacts affected life on Earth, and it was more than likely from these sources by way of learned journals and books of the day the Verne sourced his material, just as Hergé did in his day.
The idea that cosmic rays and radiation had strange effects on growth, and that science (rather than magic of legend) held strange powers, is a staple of fiction - Verne himself used it more than once, and it is the basis of everything from Godzilla to Titano the Super-Ape, by way of super-sized mutant ants, moths, women,Hulks and who-knows-what else, so that Hergé being interested in the same topic, inspired by Verne or not, is not surprising.
So, no, not by any definition that I can subscribe to could I say that there is a compelling case to be made that Hergé systematically or otherwise plagiarized, or even borrowed heavily from, the works of Jules Verne, nor can I see that the issues raised in the article diminish in any way the story-telling power of his books or the position of him as a figure of note in the comics world, any more than I think the reputation of Verne as a writer is dented by knowing that he may have re-written someone else's manuscript.