Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Worlds (magazine)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 GrahamColm 09:14, 14 October 2012 [1].

New Worlds (magazine) edit

New Worlds (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC) and Nikkimaria (talk)[reply]

New Worlds was a British science fiction magazine, most famous for its 1960s incarnation under Michael Moorcock's editorship. Moorcock made New Worlds the leader of the "New Wave", a controversial movement to expand the boundaries of the science fiction genre. The magazine has proved remarkably hard to kill, and there have been numerous reincarnations since it was first declared dead over forty years ago. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review The file File:Newworlds.jpg should detail the actual origin as well: issue number, year, and artist of the picture if known. And with so many people owning the magazine at different points, it may be advisable to point (if known) who does currently have the copyright of this particular image. Is the "price" box part of the magazine cover, or a sticker pasted over it for sale, and not removed when scanning? (because, if it's the later, it may be better to locate another copy of the file without it) Cambalachero (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The file seems fine now. It would have been good if we could clarify the copyright issue, but perhaps I got too detailed in there, the original printer should be enough. Cambalachero (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual origin is unknown (I'm not the uploader) but it is probably taken from www.philsp.com; that's mentioned in the FUR. The description in the FUR in the image file mentions this; I don't think there's more that can be added. The issue number is mentioned ("first issue"), and I've added the year and the artist. It's not known who has the copyright; or at least I haven't been able to figure it out -- Pendulum's bankruptcy was long ago, and I've no idea who their rights went to. I'm not sure about the price but it looks to me like part of the magazine cover, not a sticker, so I think there's no problem there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review You should add the {{Infobox magazine}} to the article. "A group of science fiction fans formed a company to revive the magazine, and in the spring of 1949 Nova Publications was formed..." is a bit wordy. You should not shorten "science fiction" to "sf", use the complete words. Acronyms are only acceptable for already established ones, such as United Nations = UN. You should clarify that Amazing Stories is an American magazine; in an article about a British magazine it is tempting to assume that everybody is British unless noted otherwise. Astounding Stories and Wonder Stories should have the titles in italics as well. You say that Maurice K. Hanson founded the Novae Terrae fanzine and then moved to London; that means (if I follow correctly) that the fanzine was created somewhere else in the UK, not in London. Where? "Frances was a believer...", you should better use the verb "believe". In the first table, do we need the season columns? Everybody knows the begining and end of the seasons of the Northern Hemisphere. The word "demise" may be a bit excesive, used for magazines. Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted your points to bullets to make it easier to reply; I hope that's OK.
  • Infobox: I don't think the magazine infobox is a particularly useful one, and would prefer not to add it. Last time I looked there was no MOS requirement to do so. However, if reviewers here are in agreement that it would be better to add it, I'll do so.
  • Wordiness: agreed; fixed, I think.
  • "sf" for "science fiction" is almost universally used in the secondary sources, and I feel that it improves readability to shorten such a frequently repeated phrase. In addition, the abbreviation appears in a direct quote and in multiple titles mentioned in the article, and I think it does the reader (who may, as you say, be unfamiliar with the abbreviation) a disservice not to introduce it beforehand.
  • Amazing as a US magazine: I was hoping that "other U.S. titles" would make that point -- it is in the same sentence that Amazing is mentioned. I am having trouble reformulating this in a way that is not misleading -- for example, if I say "first U.S. sf magazine" it implies there were earlier non-U.S. sf magazines, which is not the case. I'll think some more about this one.
  • Italic titles: yes, I missed that; now fixed.
  • Hanson: Yes, in Nuneaton -- the article does say that, I think it's fairly clearly implied by saying he was a Nuneaton fan. Perhaps rephrase to "a fan in Nuneaton, Warwickshire"?
  • "Frances was a believer": agreed; done.
  • Season columns: surprisingly, it's not true that everyone agrees on the seasons. See the tables in Planet Stories for an example of a different division of the year: some magazines have the Winter issue at the start of the year, and some at the end of the year. I've even seen a magazine that does both. So I think it would be best to keep the columns.
  • "demise": well, one can only say "ended publication" in so many ways without sounding repetitive, and this isn't at all an unusual phrase (try googling it). My feeling is this is part of what it takes to make an article read more interestingly, but if others agree with you I'd be glad to change it.
Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim An impressive amount of work, and I like the summary tables. Some nitpicks though. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead is disappointing, doesn't flow well, and only two paras is insufficient for an article of this length, see WP:LEAD and the next three points.
    I have to work on something else for the rest of the evening, but will have a crack at this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to rephrase the first para to have fewer repeats of the mag's title?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pendulum went bankrupt.— when?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • immediately settled began — ??
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • avant-garde, Nuneaton, Stoke Newington, pin-up, indicia, Burroughs, Paolozzi — need links
    Done. Two of these were a bit troublesome. Burroughs is first mentioned in a quote, and since WP:MOSLINK says that "items within quotations should not generally be linked" the following mention is linked instead. I added "[William]" in front of "Burroughs" to make it clearer who this is. The other problem is Paolozzi; he is mentioned only in this quote, but since he's less well-known he really does need to be linked. Since MOSLINK only says "generally" I went ahead and linked inside the quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather assumed the link would be to Nuneaton Town F.C., I know Nuneaton, difficult to believe the town itself has fans. Can you please check? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This made me realize that the sentence was incomprehensible to someone not familiar with sf fandom. Rephrased; take a look and let me know if that makes sense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canadian director, returned to Canada — "returned home" or similar?
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate link detector found multiple links iin the body of the text (excluding lead) for Arthur C. Clarke, John Wyndham, W.H. Smith, John Menzies, Brian Aldiss, Arthur C. Clarke, Gerard Quinn, Nebula Award, Jerry Cornelius, Berkley Books, Avon Books, Science Fiction Adventures
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [3][13][14][note 3] — I thought we discouraged long strings of refs?
    My impression is that they are a cause for suspicion but not actually forbidden. In this case the [3] is the best source for Moorcock and Warburton planning to continue the magazine together; the next two sources give the remaining details but aren't so clear on that one point. The note is just a specific piece of support for another point, and uses the same sources, so it's not really an additional source. I think this is OK as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that multiple refs can be nested inside a single ref, but not a big deal if you leave as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd like to leave it as is -- I like the consistency of a given ref number being used every time a given ref comes up, which one loses if one combines refs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "References", why do Oxford and Cambridge need UK, but New York doesn't need US? I would also suggest spelling out US states to help us limies
    Nikkimaria fixed some of these earlier and I've done some more; I'll add a couple more points shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer St Albans, Herfordshire and Abingdon, Oxfordshire to be linked to their counties in the same way that US towns are linked to their states rather than just USJimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely sure what you're looking for, but I added counties and links for the refs for those two -- is that closer to what you meant? I take your point about treating UK and US towns the same in the refs, but I'm not sure I've done what you intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the changes so far, just the lead and three minor nitpicks left Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not bothered about the links to Abingdon etc, just that they are treated consistently with US. I've changed Oxford and Cambridge to include counties. Still not convinced that UK towns need "UK", while US towns don't need "US", but striking anyway. I think it's just the lead needs sorting now, and we should be there. Thanks for indent advice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now I follow you. I'll ask Nikkimaria to comment on that; she does a lot of work with references. I don't have a strong opinion either way myself. Re the lead: Malleus has agreed to take a look at it for me -- I had trouble with this lead for some reason and found it hard to write. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of country for UK and state only for US locations is actually fairly common, probably because this is what several RL style guides recommend (for example APA); we could justify either adding US or removing UK here, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, we have three paras in the lead, Malleus is happy, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small comment

  • I can't speak to most of the article, except gosh that's comprehensive, but: no mention of the important role New Worlds played in the development of speculative poetry? SF is not just prose work. Iridia (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love to add this information but have no sources that cover it. Do you know of any sources that cover this topic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, about to travel overseas so hadn't noticed this. I had some references in the spec poetry article that mentioned it: see the History section there. As I recall I Google booked those refs, but left off the link in the citation due to the frequent to/froing on the use of such links. Iridia (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Reid, which appears to be the relevant source, and she doesn't say much -- p. 95 says that New Worlds did run poetry, some of which ended up in the anthologies of that period, but that the association of sf poetry with the experimental New Wave didn't help the growth of sf poetry as a genre. This is a negative statement, and hard to cast as straightforward information without more context. I suspect Moorcock added poetry; that is, that there was no poetry on Carnell's watch. I don't have a source for that, though. Any thoughts on what you feel should be added to the article based on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The lede should be longer, but I'm not sure what should be added to extend it. My rule of thumb is one sentence in the lede for each paragraph, but I've violated it myself on any number of occasions so I'm not dogmatic about it. I do think, however, that the last sentence should have "additional" added before "22 issues". Another suggestion would be "publication" in the prior sentence, as in: "it ceased publication with issue number 200".
    Malleus has agree to take a look at the lead, so I'm going to wait for him before responding to this point -- his edits may make this comment moot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I was a bit slow to this Mike. I've been through the lead now, and I think it's fine, although obviously I would say that, wouldn't I. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a little confused about the American publication; who published it in the US after Great American Publications went under? The British publisher just shipped over copies to the US for distribution with new covers?
    Yes, that's correct; the source says "the original was released in the U.S." with a later cover date. I thought this was unambiguous; is there a problem with the way it's phrased? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only in that I was thrown by the transition between them. You might clarify that they shipped issues over both before, if true, and after GAP republished the magazine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note 9 please reverse the order of the cites so they're in numerical order. Currently cite 21 follows 63.
  • That's correct, I believe - 63 cites the first part of the note, 21 the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they're in that order because that's the order of the information they cite. I think it would be better to keep them that way; there's no requirements to have cites in numerical order, as far as I know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support with a few nitpicks:
  • I suppose I should read up-page, but I'm not crazy about the first sentence in the lead: "New Worlds was a British science fiction magazine, the leading such publication of its era. First published professionally in 1946, the period to 1960 has been described by historian Mike Ashley as the magazine's "Golden Age".[1]" > It feels as though the lead should begin with the paragraph after this.
    Malleus did a lot of work on the lead, so I'll ask his opinion on this. I think I see your point -- the first sentence is acting almost as a lead to the lead, summarizing again. Perhaps that second sentence could move down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean TK, so I've moved a few things around. Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frances believed in the commercial possibilities of science fiction" > should it be science fiction writing? Or is that redundant? I dunno ...
    I think it's OK as is -- what Frances believed in was the commercial viability of the genre, which I think has slightly different connotations. Just saying writing sounds a little too specific to me. For example, would you say "Frances believed in the commercial possibilities of mystery fiction", or "mystery writing"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link RAF? for those who don't know
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 1948 Carnell announced at a science fiction convention in London that plans were well underway, and that the company would be named Nova Publications Ltd > I think this can be tightened by combining the two clauses, something like this: "In May 1948 Carnell announced at a science fiction convention in London that plans were well underway to form a new company to be called Nova Publications Ltd."
    Much better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoyed reading this. Another well-researched, well-written and comprehensive piece about sf. Oh, btw made a few changes to U.S./US. Not sure if what I've done is how you want it, but it seemed to need the consistency. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review, and the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. Sorry to see it's been languishing for so long. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't really complain -- I haven't been reviewing (I have a project going on (let me know if you want to help!)) so I can't say much when I don't get comments. I did think this was going to fail for lack of reviews, but maybe it will squeak through now. Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My involvement with this article has been limited to a little bit of copyediting and a bit of jiggling with the lead, at Mike's request. I think it's a very informative and nicely written account of a magazine I'd never even heard of, and meets the FA criteria, or will shortly after my nitpicks are dealt with. However (inserted for ironic effect, as you'll see shortly), I can find fault with anything, even the best:
  • "There were US reprints of the six of the New Worlds Quarterly anthology series."
    Fixed; one of those sentences which I must have read without actually reading, since I knew what I meant it to say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, starting in 1946, a group of sf fans had begun to meet regularly on Thursday nights at the White Horse pub on New Fetter Lane, near Fleet Street, and at one of these meetings it was suggested that the group form a company to revive New Worlds." That sentence, from the Early years section, is a bit more problematic though. It seems to be very common generally, and perhaps even more so here in Wikipedia, to abuse the word "however" in that way; what is it meant to be contrasting with? The previous sentence just tells us that the publisher had gone bust, and nothing in the sentence I quoted modifies the bankruptcy or its effect. I'm also bothered by the tense confusion in "starting in 1946, a group of sf fans had begun ...". Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm probably guilty of misusing "however" in other articles too -- it perks up a narrative of events a little, making it sound as though events weren't tediously linear and predictable, but were subject to surprising changes, so it's easy to be tempted to use it inaccurately. In this case, the bankruptcy implies to the reader that the magazine is doomed...but wait! It's not doomed! A group of sf fans is going to save it! Can't I use "however" for that?
    Re the tense confusion: the problem is that the source doesn't make it clear when the suggestion was made, probably because none of the primary sources remembers exactly. The source used for this sentence says "During 1946–1947, regular Thursday night meetings had been established at the White Horse Tavern in Fetter Lane...", and then goes on to say "at one meeting" someone suggested that the regulars form a company. The next date given is May 1948, when the plans for Nova were announced. Given that the third issue from Pendulum appeared in late 1947, it seems likely that the suggestion was made in late 1947 or early 1948, but there's no way to be sure. The wording as it stands is my attempt to avoid implying more than is in the source -- if you can improve on it, please do. (And thanks for the support.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can rarely resist that kind of challenge; see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_Worlds_(magazine)/archive1&oldid=1046369117"