Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amazing Stories Quarterly/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2016 [1].

Amazing Stories Quarterly

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Stories Quarterly was a companion to the first science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories. Critical opinions differ as to its quality: "important" according to one source, with the same work being described as "turgid" by another. It's a fairly short article, but I think I've found every source that specifically talks about the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with one caveat, namely that I wonder if it's worth splitting Publishing History and Content into separate sections -- each occupies two paragraphs, sufficient for their own sections, and it kind of pulled me up short to go through the mag's entire history from a publishing perspective, and then start again with its content. I mean it's not a killer for me, so if you want to see what other reviewers think, that's fine. Otherwise, short but sweet -- the prose (which I copyedited a bit) seems fine, and I think we get a reasonable idea of the kind of fiction published. Good to see you back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and split the sections; I think you're right that it reads better that way. To avoid some ugly wrapping of images I also moved the table and second image to the right and left respectively. Your copyedits look good. Thanks for the review, and the welcome back -- I've spent the last year listing five or six thousand of my books on eBay, which turned out to be very time-consuming and left me with little time for Wikipedia. I'm done now, though, and should be active again from now on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- apart from a tiny error that I fixed, couldn't spot any formatting issues, and all refs look reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit and support. I undid one of your changes, to the lead; since Sloane was the editor, rather than a writer, I don't think your wording quite works -- it makes it sounds as if he was writing the stories himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant "they consider the work Sloane published in the early 1930s to be some of the best in the new genre." I've made the change. "consider" (intrans.) means "deliberate" or "reflect" in AHD and M-W.
Great work, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with adequate responses to my review below. A fine article indeed! starship.paint ~ KO 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Here are my comments: starship.paint ~ KO 04:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but feel that the lede is too long and thus intimidating, especially since the body is rather short.
    I've trimmed it a little; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I get more background on Hugo Gernsback, Bergan Mackinnon, Bernarr Macfadden in Publication history?
    There's not much more to say about Mackinnon, as far as I can find out. I could add a little more about both Gernsback and Macfadden, but it wouldn't really have anything to do with this article, and since they're linked I felt that was OK. The thing that might be added is that there are rumours that Macfadden forced Gernsback into bankruptcy because Gernsback wouldn't sell the magazines to him, but this is just a rumour. It's mentioned in the Amazing Stories article, since that's much longer and more detailed, but this is such a short article I felt it didn't fit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you re-state in Publication history that it was a US magazine? Where in the US was it available? Was it ever available internationally?
    I've added "U.S." to describe Amazing Stories, which is mentioned first in the text; since Amazing Stories Quarterly was a companion magazine I think that's good enough. There's no information on where it was available -- that probably means it was available more or less nationwide, but I don't have any source so I can't say that. There were no overseas editions -- many of these magazines had Canadian or British editions, but not in this case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about linking 50 cents so in Bibliographic details?
    I don't think so -- that's about a specific coin, and the price doesn't really relate to the coin. I do link currency when it's unfamiliar (e.g. pre-1971 UK currency) but here I don't think there's a need. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Christie: okay, those are adequate responses above. Some further stuff, about Gernsback's policy of running a lead novel, could you provide more examples of those?
    There are a couple more already mentioned in the article -- I don't say "lead" for all of them, since there's never room for more than one novel in a magazine. I mention The Bridge of Light by Verrill, The Birth of a New Republic, by Breuer and Williamson, and White Lily, by Taine. I think that's probably enough -- the sources mention those, and although I could list others not mentioned in the sources I don't see a reason to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Christie:there's never room for more than one novel in a magazine - I didn't know that. Does the article say that? Saying lead novel leads me to think there might be more than one novel in a magazine. starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn't say that, and from a quick look at some sources it appears that the term is used but never defined. I could put in a note saying 'There was never more than one novel in an issue; since novels were the longest fiction in the magazine they were usually described as the "lead novel" ', but I can't really source this -- I would have to claim it didn't need sourcing. If that works for you, I can add it, but I'd have to remove it if challenged by another reviewer. Do you see an alternative? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you choose the Winter 1930 issue as a picture? How about displaying the final original publication: Fall 1934?
    I think it's a stronger picture at thumbnail size -- the circular surround on the Fall 1934 cover makes the remaining elements of the picture pretty small. I also think the strong colour contrasts make the picture easier to appreciate at a small size. I agree there's a reason to have the first issue displayed somewhere, though it's not compulsory, but I think the argument is weaker for the final issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one Canadian reprint of this magazine. Worth a mention?
    Nice find -- I didn't know about that; it's not mentioned in the other main sources. I've added it and sourced it to that page. I should mention that philsp.com is run by one person, so it might be questionable under WP:RS, but the online sf encyclopedia treats it as reliable and links to it frequently, so I think it's OK. I've contacted the SFE and suggested they add this information to their page on the magazine; if they do I'll switch the ref to their page instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A nice little article, just a few points. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he decided to follow it up with a regularly quarterly magazine": Do we need to say "regularly", or is that implied by "quarterly"? If we need it, would it not just be "regular"?
    It would, but I agree it's not needed; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though apparently the decision to discontinue the magazine was not taken until some time later": Do we really need "apparently"?
    There was never any announcement of the decision, so "apparently" was a signal that this is a deduction, rather than a direct citation. (The source makes the same deduction.) I don't think it's necessary, though, so I've cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although readers' reactions to the Wells novel were negative": Where did these reactions come from? How did they give their "feedback"?
    The source just says "Gernsback's readers did not like the story"; it's almost certain that Bleiler is referring to the letters page in the magazine, where readers would have shared their opinions about the magazine's contents, but since he doesn't say that I would prefer not to. I do have a couple of these magazines, but they're in boxes so I can't look to see if there are quotable letters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and began a competition for editorial letters from readers": What are editorial letters?
    Gernsback asked readers to send in letters containing proposed editorials on science-fictional themes; the source (Wolf & Ashley) refers to one of the winners as "another of the prize-winning editorials". I've clarified this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth giving brief details of the plots of any of the stories mentioned?
    I never know how much of this to do, since it seems hard to know when to stop. Other reviewers have suggested this for other magazine articles though, so I'll have a go at this and report back when done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Bibliographic details" section, we have quite a few sentences beginning "The". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've eliminated one, but the paragraph is just a recitation of dry facts so I'm having trouble finding good paraphrases. Is that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All looks good to me now. Nice piece of work! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Amazing_Stories_Quarterly/archive1&oldid=1144366860"