Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amazing Stories

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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [1].

---

Amazing Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk), Swtpc6800 (talk)

This article is about the first magazine devoted to science fiction, founded in 1926. The article has had a substantial amount of work put in, and recently achieved GA status. We hope to make it an FA. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• ref #48 needs a publisher.
• Ref #90 needs a last accessdate.
• http://paizo.com/amazing/blog is a blog, and is thus most likely not reliable.
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the references. This is a corporate blog and the contributors all appear to be employed by Paizo Publishing. Such as Jeff Berkwits, Editor-in-Chief and Vic Wertz, Technical Director. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The blog is only used to support the statement that Paizo ran a blog for the magazine, so I think even if the fact that it's limited to Paizo staff doesn't make it reliable, it's still sufficient for the use to which it's put. Mike Christie (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but it would still be nice to see a third-party source to back it up. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other ref on that sentence does support it too, naming and linking the blog. Do you think the blog link needs to be removed? It seems harmless and somewhat informative in context, supported as it is by the other cite. Mike Christie (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support for the prose, but I've read only the first few sections. There's room for careful scrutiny by a diffferent copy-editor during this nomination process. Here are random examples.

I'll see if I can locate a new copyeditor. Mike Christie (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead: "However, Amazing was rarely an influential magazine within science fiction in any creative sense." Unsure what this means.

  I struggled with this statement, and evidently I have not yet made it clear. The magazine is legendary within sf for having founded the genre. However, it has never been a leader in creativity, or style, or originality. The Golden Age of science fiction, for example, was entirely a phenomenon of John W. Campbell's Astounding from 1939 through the mid 1940s; in the 1950s Galaxy and F&SF were starting trends and changing the field; and in the 1960s it was Michael Moorcock's New Worlds. Amazing was never an important magazine in this sense. It was simply the first one; moderately successful at times, and occasionally noteworthy, if only for debacles such as the Shaver mystery, but never critically significant. I will have another think about how to express this. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've deleted "in any creative sense" as being confusing. I think the word "influential" does the work needed here. Mike Christie (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• "were appearing with some regularity"—make the last three words one.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The market for short stories naturally lent itself to tales of invention"—Is "naturally" WP's opinion, or if repeating what is in ref 1, what does it mean? Possibly just remove the word as troublesome?

  If you baulked, it's troublesome; removed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Change of case at start of quote: "[t]he ..."—MoS says the square brackets are unnecessary. Just use the lower case as an accepted nicety in quotation practice.

  Aha. A nice nicety; thanks. Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• "done many illustrations"—bit ungainly. "produced"?

  Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Space the multiplication sign (see MOSNUM).
• "fairly regular"—it's overtly vague and could be slightly opinionated ... can you find another way of detracting from "regular"? Even "largely regular" would be better; unsure. Do you mean that he missed some deadlines among the 22 issues? Tony (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what is meant. Take a look here and you'll see what I was trying to get at; I don't know if he had deadlines and missed them but the schedule was clearly not completely regular. How about "slightly irregular"? Or "initially slightly irregular"? Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

• I did the GA review. Among various improvements since then the best is the breakdown of the single "issues and editors" chart, which had too much detail for a single visual, into the series of sub-charts which punctuate the article. I would suggest one further possible improvement to these charts: identify each editor in the captions with their colour. You could actually simplify the captions; thus, for the first chart the caption could read: "Issues of Amazing to 1939 identifying volume and issue numbers, indicating editors: Gernsback (yellow), Lynch (red), Sloane (blue), Palmer (purple)".

  Good suggestion; done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• However, two of these charts, and the circulation chart for 1960-93, and the "Slime God" issue image, are left-aligned under level-3 headings, which I have been taught is a wikicrime. Perhaps charts don't count as images? (but what about the Slime God?) If there is some exception clause, please tell me what it is so that I can use it in future.

  Darn. I'd forgotten about that; not the first time. I dug out the MOS section and it does allow for exceptions; the guideline should be followed "in the absence of a compelling reason" to diverge from it. I have moved most of the offending images, but I now have two consecutive images on the right side. If I were to rigidly alternate left and right, it would be difficult to place the 1980s-2000s chart accurately, so I'm going to assert that that's a compelling reason. Mike Christie (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quite apart from that, I wonder if the circulation chart is in the right place. Where it is kind of disturbs the continuity of the series of issues charts. Perhaps it could be placed later?

  I wondered about that at the time, and took the image-shuffling as an opportunity to move it to the chronologically correct place in the second half of the article, out of the sequence of issue grids. Mike Christie (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These points do not detract from my view that this is an article worthy of FA status. No doubt (per Tony, above) it would benefit from some neutral copyediting, but I've yet to find an article that wouldn't, even after the attentions of the best copyeditors in the business. So I'm not withholding support, but perhaps my suggestions, above, could be considered? Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 3, the author is given as Peter Nicholls, and the rest of your refs it's last name first. Might want to make that align.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. As for the blog citation, it's fine in my book. Using the blog itself as a citation for it's existence is an excellent use of primary sourcing. Hopefully, I'll get home in time to review this. In case anyone wonders about Locus, it's pretty much "the" magazine for SF/Fantasy publishing, and very reliable in this context. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the third reference to Last, First. This citation is free form so Mike should check it. Almost all of the others used the cite templates. There were several that used the author= parameter, I changed those to last= and first= parameters. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support after issues below were dealt with. Very slight oppose mainly due to some prose glitches and need for explanations.

• Okay, you LINK to science fiction, but surely a brief description of what exactly it is would be of service to our readers. (If I have to explain all sorts of linked things in my articles, I'm going to get my revenge...)

  Ho ho ho. This gave me quite a hard time (see Definitions of science fiction to see just how thorny a question this is) but I think I found a way to do this: I added "stories centered on scientific inventions, and stories set in the future" to the first sentence of the body. I don't want to really "define" science fiction at this point, for two reasons: one is that doing it concisely and accurately is very hard, and the other is that at this point in history there was no such thing as science fiction in the modern sense of a genre. I think it's better to give the reader direct examples of what was happening then rather than trying to define the abstract genre that sf ultimately became. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Need to explain what "upmarket" and "slick" mean in the publishing business.

  Done; I added another ref for the explanation. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'd move the explanation of the fact that the term science fiction hadn't been coined to the first paragraph of origins, where you're dealing with background.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Early years section, second paragraph, shouldn't it be "...but Gernsback and his brother Sidney..." since you everywhere else refer to him as Gernsback? (as an aside, are the Hugo's named for Gernsback?)

  I think it's better as "Hugo", since we're talking about his brother, who is also a Gernsback, so "Gernsback" isn't sufficiently precise. I know in context a reader would probably parse it automatically, but I also think that it's better to use both first names; the lack of parallelism in "Gernsback and Sidney" would bother me. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gernsback's Amazing... should it be "The Skylark of Space" or The Skylark of Space?

  The latter; done.

• Sloane... shouldn't it be "... to one pulp writer sums up his approach."?

  This has been the most troublesome sentence in the article. It's been revised again since your comment, in response to another editor; see if this version works. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Every article has to have a pain in the behind sentence, congrats on having yours! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest explaining what a Hugo award is as well as a Nebula.

  Done, for both. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• You have Hugo award linked in the After Ted White section, but it appears earlier in the Reprint era and Ted White section (last sentence, third paragraph)

  Unlinked. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Did Pazio give a reason for cancelation?

  Not really. Here is the announcement, which is remarkably generic. Nothing about circulation, advertising support, costs, ... nothing I can see worth quoting. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Need a citation on the Knight quotation in Influence.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Need to link and explain fanzine (Influence section).

  Done. I was torn between linking to fanzine or science fiction fanzine but went with the former because it's a better article and actually has more about sf fanzines than the latter article does. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess you know what your next article to work on is! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• You've got Asimov linked three times ... probably a bit of overkill.

  Actually it was four times! Delinked three of them. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

YIKES! While he's certainly important, four times everyone else is a bit much... (I'm not an Asimov fan, btw...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Influence section, last sentence ... "Despite it's long history, the magazine has rarely contributed..." since it's no longer being published, the "has" is misleading.

  Yes, poor phrasing. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to support after some of the above is dealt with. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Switched to support above. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• The lead section seems to be a tad on the long side. It doesn't fit on one screen. Any chance of chipping a few lines off? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've cut a little; how does that look? It's quite a long article, so I feel a long lead isn't too unreasonable. Mike Christie (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I did a review of this article on the talk page first and I am happy to say that my concerns have been largely met. The one remaining issue - just how important was Amazing Stories - is being dealt with as we collect opinions from SF scholars and I have no doubt that we will refine the article's language even further. However, it is clear from the responses that we have received already from these scholars that the article covers the major research in the field and is comprehensive (for once, we don't have to guess on that front!). In my opinion, it is also well-written and the illustrations are informative. Thanks for your diligence on this Mike! Awadewit (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "SF"?

Will "sci-fi" not be better (and clearer)? SF (capitals) can be San Francisco... Furthermore, there is inconsistency. For the entire article, "sf" is used two times, once in the lead and once in the body; "SF", aside from its declaration, is only used once later. Judging from these sporadic use, the whole abbreviation usage can be dropped and the full name used instead.

The term "sci-fi" is widely regarded as pejorative within the science fiction community; there was an extended discussion on the science fiction talk page about this and the conclusion there was that "SF" should be used as an abbreviation if one is warranted. I think it's OK to do without an abbreviation of any kind here though, so I've removed it. Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is unclear how reprints can cause a conflict between it and the writer's guild. The body mentions the articles were reprinted without payment to their authors; this should also be mentioned in the lead.

  Reworded to clarify; it now says "Under Cohen Amazing was filled almost entirely with reprinted stories. Cohen did not pay a reprint fee to the authors of these stories, and this brought him into conflict with the newly-formed Science Fiction Writers of America." Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1940s

• "he soon began to plan to leave"

Suggestion: "he soon began planning to leave"

Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "dummy issue"

What is this (a red-link as well)?

This came up on the talk page too; Awadewit asked what it was. Here's what I said there: "What he did (I haven't seen it, but I've seen similar things) would have been to create a small version of the magazine, with a cover, artwork, ads or dummy ads, and one or two real stories. This would have been to show the Ziff-Davis management to make it clear what would be published, and also to show to potential advertisers so they would understand the vehicle. I believe some copies may still exist but I've never seen one or heard of one available." I can't really cite this directly since my description is drawn more from my knowledge of publishing, and I don't have any sources that get specific about what was in this dummy issue or why it was done. The red-link was added at Awadewit's suggestion as the term does appear in multiple other articles. Can you tell me what a useful clarification would be here? Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Explain it with a footnote, preferably with a source. It seems an object that would likely be deleted if an article is made of it since it would be a dictionary definition (I hardly see how such issues can be notable). Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1960s

• "but in the event he immediately came into conflict"

I think "in the event he" should be taken out. Read in the original manner, it reads like "but if he immediately come into conflict" which sounds weird, considering the later clauses.

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1970s

• "Cohen's wife filled the subscriptions at home"

What does "filled the subscriptions" mean?

I've rephrased this to "Cohen's wife mailed out the subscription copies from home"; is that clearer? She was responsible for filling the subscription orders -- she may have stuffed and labelled envelopes, or the labels may have gone straight onto the magazines. I doubt they had a computer mailing label list, so it could have been very time-consuming.

Sheesh, did Cohen not have employees to do this? That is some cost-cutting measure! Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "with Amazing's circulation (at nearly 26,000) as good as it had been for several years, Cohen announced that Amazing and Fantastic had lost $15,000."

It sounds a bit funny in this structure with "as good as" in the first clause and "lost" in the second without any contradictory conjunction.

I reversed the order of the clauses to allow a "though" in the middle. Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Bernhard denied that this was so."

This can be simplified to "Bernhard denied it."

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gernsback's Amazing

• "with a first prize of $250."

I would think $250 is a lot of money ($3,000 in 2007 on adjustment for inflation) for a 25 cents magazine. It is surprising only 350 entered the contest. Just to be certain, are those figures correct?

Yes, I double-checked the source and that's what it says. Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

People must really hate SF then... Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gernsback offered a $500 prize for a title to this November 1926 Radio News cover. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sloane, Palmer, Browne and Fairman

• "The first "Shaver Mystery" story"

Shaver Mystery is enclosed in quotes in the lead, here, and an image caption. It is not elsewhere. Is it supposed to be so, or should it be standardized?

Those are scare quotes. There's really no mystery -- Shaver was delusional and his stories were just paranoid nonsense; Palmer presented it as a mystery to boost circulation. I used to scare quotes to avoid seeming to endorse Palmer's apparent credulity. However, I think the scare quotes are not really needed so I've dropped them. Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cele Goldsmith

• Who is Frank Paul? He is suddenly mentioned here.

  He painted all the covers for Gernsback in the late 1920s. He's mentioned several times at the top of the article, but not for some time by the time we get to this section. I added a brief clarifying note. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ahhh... Frank R. Paul... Sorry, my mind shorted out without the middle "R". Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Philip K. Dick, whose magazine sales had dropped, began to appear in Amazing"

I am uncertain, but I do not see "publisher" in Dick's portfolio (Wikipedia article). Furthermore, was it his articles that appeared in Amazing, or did he appear via profile, editorial column, or interview?

I've changed this to "whose sales to magazines"; I think this eliminates the implication he was a publisher. He was selling stories, just as the other writers mentioned were. Does that solve the problem? Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that clarifies that; still I have some uncertainties. Ignoring the descriptive, is it correct to say "He appeared in Playboy" to describe the publishing of a writer's article in a magazine? Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reprint era and Ted White

• "White's ability to attract new writers suffered because of the ongoing SFWA boycott, which had been in place for five years when he began his editorship."

This is strange. Earlier, we are told that the SFWA will boycott, starting 1965, unless Cohen pays up, which he did in 1967. With no further mention then over the boycott, we would assume it was settled with Cohen's payout. Now we are told the boycott lasted through White's tenure. Furthermore, it is only now the SFWA's boycott is introduced again. Should it not be mentioned earlier along with Cohen's licensing in this sub-section?

Good catch. This appears to be an error in the source. Ashley definitely says the boycott hurt White, but elsewhere gives August 1967 as the formal end date of the boycott. I think Ashley may have meant to say that lingering bad feeling from the boycott hurt White's ability to get stories, but it seemed better to just cut all reference to the boycott and only mention the low rates of pay. As far as mentioning the boycott again, the intended structure for the article is for the "Publishing history" section to cover financial and corporate information, and the "Contents and reception" section to deal strictly with the fiction, art, and relationships with writers. Now I've cut the reference to the boycott, is it still necessary to mention it earlier? Mike Christie (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so. Cutting out the boycott works, since it is supposedly resolved. Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Amazing's reputation had been for formula science fiction"

What does this mean? Is "formula" supposed to be "formulaic"?

In writing about the field I see "formula" used attributively in this way far more often than I see "formulaic", but I think the latter is unambiguous and, judging by your reaction, clearer to someone not familiar with the field. I've changed it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

After Ted White

• "After the merger with Fantastic Mavor continued to draw well-known writers to the magazine, including Orson Scott Card, George R. R. Martin, and Roger Zelazny."

I would suggest placing a comma between "Fantastic" and "Mavor".

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "of any of the science fiction magazines."

This can be simplified to "of any science fiction magazine."

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A long, informative article on the run of a science fiction magazine that set the standards and sparked an industry. Some parts might be a tad over-detailed, and there are some curiosities as I mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.