Talk:Comet (magazine)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Comet (magazine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 17:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Like Fantasy this is a pretty good article. I'd like to see the content expanded somewhat and the publication history section clarified if possible. Otherwise it looks to be a comprehensive take on the magazine. I found a few more bits of info while searching for other sources but nothing glaring.

style/layout

• I'm seeing Comet occasionally referred to as "Comet Stories". Is it the same thing? Looks like they're the same thing, though I'm not sure if that's another name for it or an error in sources.

  I think it must be the same -- The sources I have only refer to it as Comet, but there's no other magazine of that name that I know of. Sometimes the masthead and title page would disagree, so maybe they're quoting that (or the copyright statement). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  Is there justification for a parenthetical aside on the title e.g. "(occasionally Comet Stories)" if we can cite it? I've seen the other title a few times but I have no idea how widespread the other title is. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  Ignore the above comment for now. It's not a GA issue. If I find sufficient sources to justify noting the "other" title I'll make a post on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well, I can have a quick look through my refs and see what they say, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think the lede for this could be a hair longer, mentioning at least the feud over payment for words, if only because it ensared Isaac Asimov and Don Wollheim.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Like Fantasy I think the body could do with one more section (splitting out the publication history from the contents)

  @Mike Christie: I went ahead and boldly (one might say brashly) split those sections out. Contents seems pretty bloodless as a section title goes, but I think it flows a little better. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  That looks fine to me. When you did it I was planning to, and I was going to make the same paragraph move you did; I think it's a natural split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• the lede notes the abbreviation (sf) for science fiction so we probably don't need to repeat it in the body. Or do we? I don't know.

  I cut it from the lead, not the body; it's not used in the lead so I think that's the better way to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Interestingly the publication table coloring (yellow) shows up in desktop but not on mobile. Weird.

  Yes, weird. Not much I can do about that .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  It's very strange. The table is setting the background color properly (right classes all that). Just something that came up because I make GA reviews (on a tiny laptop) with 1/2 of the screen loaded into safari pretending to be mobile safari on an iphone (so I don't get donation banners and jumbly navigation bits at the top) and the other half in a text editor. No worries. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Should Astounding Stories be in italics?

  Oops; yes. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some sources refer to "Vortex Blaster" as "The Vortex Blaster". I'm not sure which is correct

  The book is titled "The Vortex Blaster", but the series is often referred to as the "Vortex Blaster" series. I think either is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  Got it. I think the sources I noted were referring to the book. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

content

• "Comet was pulp format" I guess "was printed in" just to keep it consistent with my needless suggestion for Fantasy :)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The schedule was initially bimonthly, but switched to monthly after the first issue." I think you mean monthly -> bi-monthly

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Although science fiction (sf) had been published before the 1920s..." This paragraph jumps through a lot of sf/pulp history very quickly. That's not necessarily bad and we should note Amazing Stories but it feels like there should be more context from the late 30s.
• "Tremaine was able to acquire some worthwhile material..." as mentioned in the layout section, I think this can be moved to a new section (below the payment paragraph)
  • I think a putative content section can also be expanded a bit w/ the sources I noted below (specifically the notes on Moskowitz, "The Psychological Repulsor" and a bit more on "The Vortex Blaster")

sources

other sources

• You just love to find magazines with common names (Comet, Fantasy) that nobody has written about don't you! :) And of course someone named "Tremaine" is a physicist who has published research on comets. Of course.

  Actually for the GAs I've put up it's a general problem, because the reason they're at GAN is that there aren't enough sources for me to take them to FAC -- I don't do GAN as a first step to FAC, as a rule. So anything of mine at GAN is automatically going to be hard to find material on. I'm amazed how well you've done at this; some of it is stuff I'm aware of, but a lot is new to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Anatomy of Wonder may also have some material on Comet

  It's on its way to me and I'll update all the relevant articles when it gets here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• E.E. "Doc" Smith by Joseph Sanders has some comment on "The Vortex Blaster" as it appeared in Comet (p. 70, available in google books)

  Unfortunately I can't see past p. 30 on preview for this one. Can you summarize anything worth including? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  Argh. This morning I could see a preview for page 70. Now I can't. Will check back in a bit. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  here is the claim. Evidently google books has 2 editions of the same work. One with page 70 obscured and one without. Searching on google books gives you the first. Searching on google scholar and clicking through the "different versions" links can get you the latter (here it is). Probably not super useful but it does note where the remainder in the series were published. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  I think I'm going to skip this; we already say that it was part of a series, and giving the publication details of the rest of the series seems too much of a digression. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Voices for the Future: Essays on Major Science Fiction Writers, Volume 1 by Thomas Clareson has some comments on Tremaine's tenure at Astounding Stories (pp.7-10)

  I have this, but it's in a box in the basement at the moment. I looked in Google Books and can't see pp. 5-9; p. 10 is about Gene Wolfe, which surprises me if the prior pages talk about Tremaine. What's the chapter title? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  This is on page 8: imgur. Ohhhh. I just realized why we were missing each other on pagination. The chapter title is "The Years of Wonder" by Jack Williamson. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  The quote is about Tremaine's policy at Astounding; I wasn't going to cover this beyond the existing statement in the article that Tremaine's stint at Astounding had made him well-known to fans. Do you think more can be justified? With long articles it's OK to be a bit longwinded about the background, but I get nervous for shorter articles -- it would be easy to overpower the small amount of material on Comet with too much background data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  I leave that to your discretion (as with all these sourcing suggestions). I did note above that we sort of jump through pulp history quickly in the publication section. Maybe we could mention the successful tenure at Astounding & note that he was also interested in publishing a wider variety of stories? Or trim off the bit about sf in the 20s and start w/ Tremaine at Astounding. Also I think the addition of a sentence or fragment will look less lopsided if you split off the content and publication history sections. Protonk (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Science-fiction: The Gernsback Years : a Complete Coverage of the Genre Magazines ... from 1926 Through 1936 by Richard Bleiler talks about Tremaine starting Comet (p. 434) but it's not available via google books

  I have this but I'm not sure how to use it. The only really new piece of information here is that the company that issued Comet was the "Orlin Tremaine Company"; every other source I have lists the publisher as "H-K Publications". I would assume this means that the H-K Publications imprint was owned by the Orlin Tremaine Company, but I don't want to assert that. From an NY Times search it appears that the address of the OTC was 105 West 40th. When my magazines come out of boxes I will look to see if the OTC is listed somewhere in the masthead. In the meantime I'll think about adding a footnote to cover what Bleiler says. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  I added a note; see if that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  Looks good, with the caveat that I'm not a subject matter expert so I don't know how common it was to spin out imprints. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• C.M. Kornbluth: The Life and Works of a Science Fiction Visionary by Mark Rich has a story (p. 74, available in google books) about "The Psychological Regulator", a story submitted by Don Wollheim, then re-written by several authors--finally accepted by Comet after C.M. Kornbluth did the last rewrite--published under a pseudonym with the proceeds shared between the authors.

  Thanks; added something based on this. This also allowed me to add a cite to my favourite reference for the Futurian collaborations: take a look at this page and search for "One thing we young fans did a lot was collaborate". There are lots of sources for that factoid but that's easily the funniest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  That's hilarious. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Evidently Comet published Sam Moskowitz's first story (!), "The Way Back" in their March 1941 issue. See Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, Volume 2 by R. Reginald (p. 1007, available in google books).

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Isaac Asimov (also !) had an interesting response to Tremaine's rate of 1 penny per word (which hs says Tremaine told him writers who wrote for less should be blacklisted) in his memoir ISBN 9780307573537 (look for the chapter on Don Wollheim or search for Tremaine's name on google books, I can't recover the page number)
  • Science fiction, fantasy, and weird fiction magazines by Marshall Tymn (pp. 163-168, no full preview on google books) also mentions the letter to Asimov and Tremaine's spat with Wollheim over payment.
  • The above is mentioned in the article already (that'll teach me to search for sources before reading the whole thing) but more sources are gravy, I guess.
• Science Fiction Fandom by Joseph Sanders notes that Comet held a fan contest for the fan who "overcame the most obstacles" to come to a Denver convention (p. 53), but it's only available in snippet view to me.

  Looks interesting; I'm tempted to buy this too but the cheapest copy on the net is $50. However, the snippet appears to be quite self-contained; it's clearly referring to the 1941 Worldcon. I've added a sentence based on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Lester Del Rey in The world of science fiction, 1926-1976: the history of a subculture (p. 126) also calls it Comet Stories (snippet only, again)

  I have this; I think this is just del Rey being careless with the title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mike Ashely's The History of the Science-fiction Magazine, Volume 1 notes that Comet had an interesting feature, the "super-short stories" but that's all I got out of snippet view (pp. 160-161). You mention this in the article but that's another source should you have it on hand (and you have a bunch of his other books so that's possible)

  I do have it, but I can't find anything in volume 1 -- did you mean volume 2, which covers 1936-1945? I found some comments about Comet in that, but nothing that's not already covered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  See here Volume I, page 161, here is the screengrab. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion; I was planning to work on the remaining additional sources tonight -- I'll do that anyway, of course. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Introductory sentences in the body

@Protonk: I think everything from the GA review is now addressed except for the comment about the introductory sentences. I've used similar sentences to introduce articles on quite a few magazines, and rather than write a quick answer now I'd rather go and look at a few of the others and see if I've been consistent about how I've done it. I'll post tomorrow, probably in the evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I saw the same sentences in Future. I think you should take my suggestions with a grain of salt, as I sometimes have difficulty sussing out where general information is valuable context for the reader and where it is encyclopedic throat clearing. Protonk (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  OK, I've looked at a few other articles I wrote and I think I am willing to stand by the basic premise I was trying to follow. For the first couple of magazines (Amazing Stories, Wonder Stories) a brief discussion of magazine sf prior to Gernsback is necessary. Past that point Amazing is the reference point; and once you get to the late 1930s the boom that runs from 1938 to 1941 should be mentioned. I can get a little more expansive than that for a long article, but for a short article more detail risks overwhelming the subject. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  Sounds good. The more of these I review the more I'll internalize the timelines and relationships. E.g. looking at Miracle I see a different thread entirely and I can see how each is appropriate. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)