Talk:Miracle Science and Fantasy Stories/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

images

I didn't ask this on the other reviews but how do we tell when copyright hasn't been renewed for a specific work? Does the LOC track that? Is there some database somewhere which records it?
This is how I search; I don't think there's anyway to confirm it except to do the search again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

style/layout

I won't ask you to make a "contents" section, but I think the flow of the article would be much improvded by moving some of the issue details out of the second paragraph. Right now they're alongside statements about who wrote for the magazine, the artwork and the confusion over Douglas Dold's role. Are we mentioning Douglas's credit as the editor after the first sentence because it was the first issue some sources claimed he edited? The text doesn't make this clear to me. Near as I can tell we talk roughly about publication history for the first half of the paragraph and the quality of the fiction (and who wrote it) for the second half. But I had to read the paragraph twice to get that division.
You're right, that was kind of a mess. I moved the date-of-issue statements to the bibliographic details section, and left the rest more or less in place. You're right about the intended division of focus, and the issue details obscured that, so I hope it reads better now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

content

"The second issue was dated June−July 1931. It proved to be the last: Elliott Dold fell ill and was unable to continue working on the magazine." I feel this could be re-worked to flow better. ~~Also I have the same question as I did for that FAC, why is there a colon here?~~
Reworked in response to another comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The fiction" we say this twice, presumably referring to the content of the magazine. Were there non-fiction stories published? Other features?
I don't think so, but I can't be sure. DeVore doesn't mention any, and a review of a reprint on Amazon, here, says there wasn't anything but fiction and ads, assuming that it's a facsimile reprint. The ISFDB pages [1] and [2] don't mention anything but fiction and artwork, and since one of them was verified by a reader with a copy at hand, it seems likely it was just fiction. I don't think any of that is citable though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "the fiction" a turn of phrase which appears in sources? Protonk (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. If you bring up the Tymn/Ashley in Google Books, and search for the phrase "the fiction was", you'll get 13 hits, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool. What if we said "Miracle included stories by Victor Rousseau and John Miller Gregory." just so we don't end up repeating "the fiction" within 2 sentences? Protonk (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Douglas Dold contributed the lead novel to the first isuse, and his brother..." Instead of "his brother" maybe say "Elliott"
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The fiction included stories by Victor Rousseau, John Miller Gregory." looks like this was a list of three that got cut short.
Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Both issues were in pulp format..." "printed in" still works here, even though it's part of a litany and "144 pages long" would break the rhythm :)
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

references

we note Pulpwood Editor in the text as a source for a claim. Are we relaying another source's reading of that or do we want to cite it directly?
I just acquired Pulpwood Editor, as it happens, so I can cite it directly if necessary. Here's what is in the Tymn/Ashley book: DeVore points out that Douglas is often credited as editor, and says he thinks this is because Hersey is misinterpreted in Pulpwood Editor. He then quotes the following from Hersey:
My third venture was my own. It was entitled Miracle Science ... Elliott Dold, whose brother Douglas Dold had been our editor of an adventure magazine, the Danger Trail, encouraged me—not that I needed to be spurred, into publishing this periodical. Elliott Dold is one of the brilliant artists whose work now appears in many of the fantasy sheets. Unfortunately, serious illness prevented his continuing services as editor-artist-writer and I decided to put the magazine aside temporarily. I regret it has never been revived.

DeVore then says "From this it is clear that Elliott was the editor, though in all probability Hersey, Douglas and Elliott all worked together." I think this is fairly clear, but given that other sources have apparently misinterpreted it I would rather rely on DeVore for this than just quote Hersey directly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so we're citing DeVore on the claim that Hershey was clear in PE about Douglas not being the editor? That's not apparent from the text (Which just has the one citation at the bottom of the para).
I think your reasoning for citing DeVore alone makes sense, though you'll have to admit it's funny to be so (verifiably) certain of the clarity of a passage yet worried enough about misinterpretation to refuse to quote it. :) Protonk (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment; it's an odd situation. I added a clarifying note -- is that OK, or is it now too convoluted? Not sure if the way I did it really helps the reader; do they care that this is via DeVore? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too convoluted now. I don't think it helps the reader to know this, but it seemed like a mildly weird situation. Let me take a hack at it. What's the page number in PE for that quote, just in case I want to source it? Protonk (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page 188. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"; some sources also credit Douglas as editor but sf historian Howard DeVore argues this stems from a misreading of Hershey's autobiography." No need to namecheck it in this case. Also the clarity of Hershey's statement isn't of interest (if it is we should actually cite it), the source of the misinterpretation is. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the structure but I think we should make it "some sources credit Douglas as editor instead but" (or "some sources instead credit"); the sources in error just credit Douglas, not both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do it to it. :) Protonk (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much of the DeVore cite can be broken up and used for specific claims? The vast majority of the article is cited to that 3 page stretch and each citation supports very different claims.
The Tymn/Ashley book, where the DeVore piece appears, has a standard format for all the articles. They consist of text, which tells the story of the magazine chronologically, and are followed by two standard sections: Information Sources, and Publication History. The former includes a bibliography, lists of index sources and reprint sources, and locations known to hold copies. The latter contains subsections that give more detailed information about the title, the volume data, including frequency and irregularities, the publisher, editor, format, and price. In this case the article starts at the foot of p. 410 and ends midway down 412; the information and publication sections are on 412-413. I could split out 412-413 and cite the bibliographic details section for that if you think it's worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it might be worth it. Hahaha. So I've had this preview window open for 5 minutes typing and deleting caveats to the previous sentence. Nothing that the source is only a few pages long so splitting could be some nonsense to make the article look more diversely sourced than it is or explaining that's actually a GOOD thing to ward of GARs, etc. Somewhere Harry Truman's ghost is demanding a one handed GA reviewer. So I'd say make the article/biblio split. Protonk (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I figure I've deleted about half as much text as I've saved in Wikipedia edit windows. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lede says the fiction was unremarkable. The body says it was "poor". What, specifically, does DeVore say, as he appears to be our cite for this.
He has quite a bit to say, in rather stronger terms than I used: "a rather poor piece by ... Douglas .... It shows signs of being assembled from previously rejected or incomplete fragments of other stories"; "in the [second] issue the lead novel was by brother Elliott, for all that any difference was noticeable .... This story is apparently Elliott Dold's only attempt at fiction, for which we can be thankful"; "[Gregory]'s idea of science fiction was little above the junior level". A couple of other comments are less easily summarizable except to say he wasn't impressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

other sources

You got me on this one. I've only found 2 other sources so far.

Science-fiction, the Early Years (Bleiler & Bleiler, ISBN 0873384164)
- p. 97 talks about Douglas Dold, though doesn't offer much detail.
- p. 98 talks about Elliott a bit and also notes that it is likely they collaborated on a story, though the wording in the text indicates this is a bit 2nd hand
  Good find; I added a bit from this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Shudder Pulps: A History of the Weird Menace Magazines of the 1930s by Robert Kenneth Jones (ISBN 1434486249)
- pp. 68-69 gives some background detail on Hershey, though nothing on Miracle directly aside from a trivial mention.
- If you wanted an distinct cite for the "thrill book" publication, that's in there.
  Done; when I checked DeVore he didn't explicitly say Hersey edited eight issues of The Thrill Book, so this was nice to add. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - 2/2! That's my best record so far! Protonk (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think these should be easy fixes. I've convinced myself that you've covered the preponderance of sources out there and that given those limitations this is about as good as the article is going to get. I think adding at least the Bleiler book for some context on the Dold brothers is worthwhile. Whether you choose to cite The Shudder Pulps on Hershey is up to you. Once my questions about sourcing and my comments on copyediting are resolved I can pass this. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]