Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Science fiction magazine/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Science fiction magazine

Science fiction magazine edit

I've put a lot of time and research into this article and would appreciate some feedback. 209.247.222.103 21:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all of the suggestions below. Rick Norwood 15:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, it needs to be broken up into sections (i.e History, etc). Second thing is you don't really need to list the different magazines by format (glossy paper, etc) or by size. In fact, you probably don't need to list them at all. I don't the size or the format of a magazine is as important as the content. Maybe concentrate on the contributions of the various magazines to the field. Also, I believe it is spelled "phenomenon". --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And I've added an explanation for my reasoning in listing my size: because libraries and collections shelve magazines by size, and so it helps to know the size of the magazine when searching for it in a collection or back issue shop.

Needs to be broken up with headings to make it more readable, as at the moment it's really ugly and hard to read. Dividing the magaizes by size is an odd choice; personally I would have categorized them by movements instead eg The Golden Age, ushered in by John W. Campbell's editorship of Astounding, The New Wave, begun by Moorcock's editorship of New Words, and so on. Euchrid 17:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a good start, but I agree with the above commentaries. Also right now the article is about 50% lists. I think the long lists of magazines should be placed on their own page sub-divided by type, and this page can focus on the topic description. The page could also do with a couple of images, some categories, and a few "see also" links and some good quality external site links. Thanks. — RJH 14:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some articles that have the lists in the articles, and other articles that break out the lists in a separate article. The wiki style sheet on lists does not mandate which of these choices to make, and so I went with my preference: to have lists right there in front of me.
  • I agree, for the most part, with the other comments. One serious error is that most of the American paperback "magazines" you list were actually anthology series -- all but Quark, as I recall -- and Orbit was a hardcover series, with the last half of the run (roughly) never appearing in paperback; Nova and New Dimensions were also hardcover series. Missing are at least two paperback magazines -- Destinies (edited by Jim Baen at Ace) and Far Frontiers (later New Destinies, edited by Baen at Baen Books). In terms of fact-checking: Current "bedsheet" magazines aren't the same size as "Life" was; Worlds of Tomorrow was revived c. 1970; missing digests include The Haunt Of Horror (mid 70's, from Marvel Comics!) and Forgotten Fantasy (reprints); the history of Fantastic Adventures/Fantastic is more complicated than you have it; Galileo and Asimov's Adventure weren't on "slick" paper, and I don't think Cosmos and TZ were, either; I'm not sure it's correct to say there were best-of-the-year anthologies for every year since 1949, and expect there's a gap or two in the years just after the Wollheim and Carr collections ended; there were at least 9 US digests in 1970: Galaxy, If, WoTomorrow, WoFantasy; Amazing, Fantastic; F&SF, Venture; Analog -- there may have been more; I'm not sure when the publisher of Amzing/Fantastic stopped publishing reprint digests; and, if you include Captain Future, why not Doc Savage? Not to mention Perry Rhodan? Monicasdude 00:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Twilight Zone also had a relatively short-lived digest companion called "Night Cry," which I'd forgotten entirely until I saw a few copies in a local used bookstore last weekend. I thing it was principally a reprint zine drawn from TZ, but I could be wrong. Monicasdude 17:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Destinies and Far Frontiers. I agree that it is hard to tell a paperback (or hardback -- which I now mention) magazine from an anthology. I think the main difference is whether or not the book is a periodical. The inclusion of book reviews, editorials, etc. is also in indicator -- but not an absolute guide. I've fixed the mistake on the size of current magazines, such as Realms of Fantasy. And, as I say at the beginning of the article, horror magazines are a separate genre, about which I know little. Why include Captain Future but not Doc Savage? I suppose I was influenced by the Day index, but somehow Captain Future feels like an sf mag while Doc Savage does not. Captain Future spent a lot of time in outer space, Doc Savage was mostly earthbound.
On the numbers of US magazines in existance in a given year, I was guided by Locus. I'll double check.
Please add to the article information you know that I don't, such as info about Perry Rhodan and other non-English language sf magazines -- though Perry Rhodan doesn't "feel" like an sf mag to me, since (as far as I know) it did not publish any non-Perry Rhodan stories.
Please add a section on magazines from countries other than the US and Great Britain.
  • I believe the physical format of the magazine is only of passing interest. should be less prominent. ike9898 13:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
As I mention above, it is important when trying to find the magazine in a large collection.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Science_fiction_magazine/archive1&oldid=192541942"