Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Science Stories/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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [1].
Super Science Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a companion to Astonishing Stories, which recently went through FAC: Super Science Stories and Astonishing Stories were sister magazines for much of their existence. Both were fairly minor magazines in the overall history of science fiction, but they had their moments and I hope I've managed to highlight them.
There are two possibly controversial points I would like to raise for reviewers' consideration. First, the issue grids, which I've been using in one form or another on many of these magazine articles, have drawn several comments -- they are not very compliant with WP:ACCESS, though in their defence they are intended as visual aids, and do not present information that is unavailable in the article text. I built a sandbox with a table version and a gif version; Malleus spent a good deal of time improving the table version -- see User:Mike Christie/Sandbox4 for the current version. There are still some problems with that version; the sandbox talk page has some discussion, as does the Astonishing FAC linked above. Hence I am still using a graphical version, though it is now svg instead of gif to avoid resizing problems.
The other point is that there is a substantial amount of text in this article that was taken directly from the Astonishing Stories article; I'd guess about 30-40%. It's been edited to try to give it a little different feel; Malleus also did a copyedit of the whole article and that will have changed the flavour some more. However, reviewers should be aware that this is in some ways not entirely original work. I raised this point at WT:FAC before nominating either magazine at FAC; the response there convinced me it was OK to proceed with the nominations, but I want to make sure reviewers are aware of the situation.
Is this the longest FAC nom statement ever? I'm sure it's the longest I've ever written. Thanks to Malleus for the copyedit; I hope you enjoy this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source nitpicking - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In a few instances you have omitted spaces after commas in shortened citations
- Be consistent in how you punctuate volume numbers in shortened citations
- Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. The first and third issues are fixed -- I was only able to find one instance of each so please let me know if you see more. I couldn't see any inconsistencies in the volume punctuation; can you point me at an example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both sources with volumes use colons in References, but in Footnotes one does and the other does not - was that a conscious choice? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it was worse than that once you pointed me at the problem; in one case there was no volume given at all. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both sources with volumes use colons in References, but in Footnotes one does and the other does not - was that a conscious choice? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Review The stuff that is already in is fine. Is there an iconic/notable cover you could stick in? (probably non-free, but would be justifiable) Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review. Take a look at this version, which includes two cover images; I removed them when I discovered they were not public domain. I'd be glad to include one or both but I have a hard time justifying it as I've found no discussion of specific covers, and as far as I know there were no particularly well-known or iconic covers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you would probably be justified including a single cover merely as an identifying image under the NFCC; if you're gonna do that, and all of them are copyrighted, and none of them are in any way iconic, then the first (or perhaps last) cover would probably be a fair bet. Your call as to find one that you feel is representative, I guess. Of course, if you feel that the article works fine without a cover (I haven't read it), and that adding one would not add significantly to reader understanding of the topic- great! I hope no one would feel the need to force you to use one. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another editor has just put back the first issue cover, and I think that's justifiable, based on your comments -- there is some discussion of the amateur level of the artwork in the early issues, though it's not specifically about that cover. I've added a fair use rationale. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you would probably be justified including a single cover merely as an identifying image under the NFCC; if you're gonna do that, and all of them are copyrighted, and none of them are in any way iconic, then the first (or perhaps last) cover would probably be a fair bet. Your call as to find one that you feel is representative, I guess. Of course, if you feel that the article works fine without a cover (I haven't read it), and that adding one would not add significantly to reader understanding of the topic- great! I hope no one would feel the need to force you to use one. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review. Take a look at this version, which includes two cover images; I removed them when I discovered they were not public domain. I'd be glad to include one or both but I have a hard time justifying it as I've found no discussion of specific covers, and as far as I know there were no particularly well-known or iconic covers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport -- Although this is the first time I've got round to reviewing such an article in WP, I think I enjoy the history of the SF mags as much as the stories in them, and it appears you do too... ;-) Great work -- structure, prose, referencing, detail and supporting materials look fine, just a couple of minor comments:- In the first sentence you mention a revival of the magazine in 1949-51, but this is never raised again in the lead. It reads oddly to see "The final issue" dated May 1943, when it's earlier implied that it was only the final issue of the original run. A brief statement re. the revival at that point would help I think.
- When Pohl sold his own stories to himself, did he ever do so under his own name or always a pseudonym? You tag one instance of the latter in a footnote, but if it was his standard practice (as I'd expect) then it might be worth mentioning in the main body after "began to augment his income by selling to himself" under Contents and reception.
- He always used a pseudonym, but in fact this was because he always used a pseudonym for everything he published till he was over thirty years old. In The Early Pohl he explains that he had a fondness for pseudonyms that took him years to outgrow. I could certainly add that all these stories were pseudonymous, but since he gives a different reason for the use of pseudonyms I don't want to mislead the readers. I see that it would be useful for the reader to know this, though. Any suggestions for how you think it should be handled? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked a number of notables but found nothing to alter in the text from a prose perspective -- quite unusual for me so well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I have to give credit to Malleus, whose copyedit was very helpful. If you're interested in the history of sf magazines let me know if you're interested in collaborating on an article or two -- there are plenty left to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, love to. I have my own copies of Aldiss' Thrillion-Year Spree, Ashley's Book of SF Lists, and a prized Encyclodepia of Science Fiction dating from 1978 with an entire chapter by Ashley devoted to the mags, which was what sparked my interest in this field in the first place, as basic references. MilHist has been my main focus at WP but more than happy to broaden my range by collaborating on things like this. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I have to give credit to Malleus, whose copyedit was very helpful. If you're interested in the history of sf magazines let me know if you're interested in collaborating on an article or two -- there are plenty left to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Ruhrfisch - I just read this interesting and very well-written article and find it meets all the FA criteria. My only quibble is that there is no mention of the Canadian and British reprint editions in the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point -- I normally don't mention reprints in the lead as they usually contain no new fiction, but in this case the Canadian first reprint has some independent interest. I added a note about it and also mentioned the reprints of the later run, for completeness. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A fascinating and well-written article. The detail with which it's told convinces me it must be comprehensive -- it is a magazine from the 1940s, after all! ceranthor 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only on two conditions: please shorten the first paragraph, and include more images than those boring charts. Otherwise, a very well-done, comprehensive article! Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've broken the first paragraph in two; you're right that it was too long. For the images, we do have one fair use cover but I don't see how I can justify another. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Informative to those unfamiliar with the topic. All criteria appears in order and as needed. Brad (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.