Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fantastic Novels/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:58, 9 July 2014 [1].
Fantastic Novels edit
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic Novels was a minor science fiction and fantasy pulp magazine of the 1940s, a companion to Famous Fantastic Mysteries, which was promoted to FA last year and which reviewers may find useful as a comparison. Fantastic Novels had a shorter run, and was less well-known; as a result this is quite a short article, though not as short as some existing FAs. It includes everything I could find on the topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article seems slight, at 12kb. Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support have read through with light c/e's (any of which can be reversed), and am impressed. Its short *but* tight, informative and engaging, far from fandom, and sourced by a person who is evidently truly versed in the subject matter and understands wiki policy on sourcing. One of our best examples to hold up; for sure. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: It's been some time, Mike – welcome back to FAC. Some general comments:
- Thanks! It's good to be back; I hope to show up here a little more regularly, and to be able to contribute some more reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should mention the publishers in the lead, and also say where in the US the magazine was published
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A garbled sentence in the lead: "It lasted for 25 issues, with was Mary Gnaedinger as editor."
- Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When you've sorted that out, I think you need to clarify the figures. "It lasted for 25 issues" implies continuity, which is misleading. Better to say that the first incarnation lasted for 5 issues and the second for 20. Also, clarify in the lead that the Canadian and British reprints were separate from the main issues.
- I clarified the issues; good point. I'm not clear what the problem is with the reprints -- doesn't the fact that they are stated to be reprints make it clear what's going on? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a little ce on the latter part of the lead – see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a little ce on the latter part of the lead – see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I clarified the issues; good point. I'm not clear what the problem is with the reprints -- doesn't the fact that they are stated to be reprints make it clear what's going on? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "By the early decades..." or "In the early decades..."?
- Either would be true, but I picked "By..." because science fiction stories were already appearing regularly in popular magazines by the late 19th century, though they weren't called that and did not yet constitute a genre. Do you think it should be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your call Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- After thinking about this I decided to switch to "In"; the implied reference to earlier science fiction isn't really useful here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your call Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Either would be true, but I picked "By..." because science fiction stories were already appearing regularly in popular magazines by the late 19th century, though they weren't called that and did not yet constitute a genre. Do you think it should be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it not more usual to give the "SF" abbreviation in upper case? It looks odd to my eye in lower case.
- The lowercase form is used in many of the secondary sources, including the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia, which is the most authoritative source. "SF" is certainly used as well, in some sources; I tend to prefer the lowercase form because the uppercase form can stand for other things (San Francisco, for example) whereas the lowercase form isn't easy to mistake for anything. I was hoping that specifically introducing the abbreviation would make this acceptable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "bimonthly" is an awkward word, because it can mean both "every two months" or "twice a month". I'd rephrase to avoid the ambiguous word
- I've rephrased, to try to keep the word; in magazine publishing it pretty much invariably means every two months, and since the sources use it unabashedly I'd like to do the same. I've added an explanation inline that I hope makes this OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "though the scheduled slipped" – a stray extra "d" there?
- Oops again; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fantastic Novels was suspended with that issue" → "Fantastic Novels was suspended after that issue"
- Yes, better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was World War II a factor that affected production, since the US was not at war until December 1941?
- The sources don't specify, but going on what else I've read about the situation in magazine publishing at that time, I suspect the issue was that Canada was at war from late 1939, and Canada was also a major supplier of wood pulp. Transportation in Canada would certainly have been requisitioned, even if the lumber was not, so it seems likely that something like that would explain why US magazines ran into difficulties before the country formally entered the war. However, that's speculation on my part; the sources don't give details, so I don't feel I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The words "as well" are unnecessary.
- Agreed; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "from the demand from" is awkward repetition
- That was introduced by another editor recently; I have reverted to the previous wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "continued to reprint work by A. Merritt" → "continued to reprint work by Merritt"
- Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "along with" and "including" in the same sentence is inadvisable. I think I'd split it.
- I've had a go at fixing this; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "By the early 1950s, when first Fantastic Novels and two years later Famous Fantastic Mysteries..." This has to be "In..."; "two years later" cannot follow "by"
- Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Contents and reception": nothing here about the reception. Are there sales figures, as an indicator of popularity, or any recorded appreciative or critical comments?
- There are no sales figures -- it wasn't until the early 1960s that US magazines were required by law to print circulation information. There's nothing significant on reception either, perhaps because the magazine consisted largely of reprints, and so any critical commentary really wouldn't have been directed at the magazine itself. I changed the section title to "Contents". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the issues that would have been dated March 1941 and March 1951 were delayed by one month" – hasn't this information already been given, in the Publication history section?
- Likewise, the details relating to Munsey and Popular Press are unnecessarily repeated.
- Both the above two points are correct, but I'm a bit torn about deleting them. I think it's beneficial to have all the bibliographic information in one place in a single section, but I don't want that to prevent me from mentioning some key points about schedule in the "Publication history" section. For example, a schedule slipping from monthly to bimonthly was often an indication that the magazine was having financial trouble, so it's not a solely bibliographic fact. Do you feel it really should be cut from one place or the other?Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On the first point, well and good. But the simple repetition of the publishers' names seems unnecessary. If you want to include these names in the bibliographical section, you could work them into the first sentence, thus: "Mary Gnaedinger was the editor of Fantastic Novels for both the Munsey and Popular Publications series" – or some such. It is not, however, a sticking point; I'll leave you to decide. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an improvement, I agree; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On the first point, well and good. But the simple repetition of the publishers' names seems unnecessary. If you want to include these names in the bibliographical section, you could work them into the first sentence, thus: "Mary Gnaedinger was the editor of Fantastic Novels for both the Munsey and Popular Publications series" – or some such. It is not, however, a sticking point; I'll leave you to decide. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the above two points are correct, but I'm a bit torn about deleting them. I think it's beneficial to have all the bibliographic information in one place in a single section, but I don't want that to prevent me from mentioning some key points about schedule in the "Publication history" section. For example, a schedule slipping from monthly to bimonthly was often an indication that the magazine was having financial trouble, so it's not a solely bibliographic fact. Do you feel it really should be cut from one place or the other?Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ping when ready. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review...Ping! @Brianboulton:. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brianboulton: I think that's everything; thanks, Brian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (subject to sources and image clearance): I'm happy with your changes. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments bt Crisco
- more recent reprints, including Henry Kuttner and C.L. Moore's Earth's Last Citadel. - Were the reprints more recent, or were the works being reprinted more recent? Also, I'd include "works by" before Henry Kuttner
- Earth's Last Citadel is actually by Kuttner and Moore; I've rephrased to make this unambiguous and also to clarify that the reprinted works were originally printed recently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Standardise whether you use the abbreviation "SF" after you've glossed it the first time.
- I'd like to keep both, if possible; it makes for more variety, and there are occasionally paragraphs in articles about old science fiction magazines that contain "science fiction" multiple times; it gets quite tedious to see either "science fiction" or "sf" repeated too many times. In this case the first paragraph of "Publication history" is the only place where the term appears frequently; I can make this "sf" throughout, but I don't think it's a kindness to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Any information on the contents of the second series? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The last point is surely covered in the "Content" section, second para? Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; or is the request for a couple more names of the works reprinted? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fumble on my part. Oops. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; or is the request for a couple more names of the works reprinted? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The last point is surely covered in the "Content" section, second para? Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, all of my concerns have been addressed. Support. Reading articles like this gives me ideas for Poedjangga Baroe, which I'd like to take a step further (though I think there's still discussion of the different polemics which I need to work in); thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Missing full bibliographic info for Davin
- Compare author formatting on FNs 10 and 11
- Compare Day and Tuck title punctuation in short cites and References
- No citations to Ashley 2005, Clute & Grant
- Be consistent in whether you format locations as "city state" or "city, state". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:: All done except the third bullet -- I can't spot the difference; sorry. Can you let me know what the problem is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Science Fiction Magazines" vs "Science-Fiction Magazines" for Day, "Fantasy, Volume" vs "Fantasy: Volume" for Tuck. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it now; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - [[Speci
Image review - @Nikkimaria: could you also pls just check the licensing on the sole image? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Licensing is fine, although it would be better to use creation/publication rather than upload date in the "date" field. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: do you mean in the license or the information template, or both? I'm not expert on the use of either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, both, but the license already implies the correct date - the template says 2013. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: thanks; both are now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, both, but the license already implies the correct date - the template says 2013. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: do you mean in the license or the information template, or both? I'm not expert on the use of either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.