Talk:Venture Science Fiction

Notes on merge

The merger I propose is uncontroversial except as to which is the target. Pepso suggested that the merge target be Venture Science Fiction; I know the magazine is often indexed that way, and that is the form of the title on the cover. However, the masthead on every issue gives the title as "Venture Science Fiction Magazine", so I think that's the more bibliographically precise title to use.

I've added to this version some of the material from the other article. Mike Christie (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA failed

Hello, this article has failed the good article for the reasons, the following is a list of the GA criteria:

1. It is well written → Pass
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable → Fail
3. It is borad in its coverage → Pass
4. It is neutral → Pass
5. It is stable → Pass
6. All the images have fair use rationales → Fail

The second criteria is one of the main problems, quotes like this But ultimately it was cancelled in the summer of 1958 having failed to gain enough circulation This is unreferenced and their are many other quotes like that throughout the article. The sixth criteria is less of a problem, the images have fair use rationales but they do not have a specific copyright tag on them, they just say that their is little chance of an alternate free version of the image. Once these problems have been addressed it will probably pass. Well done to all of the contributors. Kindest regards - The Sunshine Man 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was not removed from the candidates list after the above review, so I ended up re-reviewing it. The issue with criteria #6 is now fixed. My assesment of criteria #2 is a little different. I think it is reasonably well referenced for an article of this length. The statements made without verifiable sources are uncontroversial, as far as I can tell. So, I'm promoting it. ike9898 20:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Venture Science Fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310213832/http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/328 to http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/328

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Disputed note about Bert Tanner's art

This sentence has been removed by a couple of editors: The cover, by Bert Tanner, is much weaker than the art provided by Ed Emshwiller for the first version of the magazine, from the caption of one of the pictures. The sentence in the source that supports this is "The covers [by Tanner] were not as impressive as the earlier ones and could have hurt sales". I think this is sufficient support, though on looking at it now I would remove "much". The source is a respected encyclopedia of the genre. CLCStudent, would you object to me returning the sentence, with "much" removed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have to object because one could argue that it is a point of view. CLCStudent (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added De Larber as the source of the opinion in the text; that makes it clear it's his opinion. Adding that to the caption would make it unwieldy, so I've just re-added the attribution to Tanner; the paragraph next to it can take care of the opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)