Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Authentic Science Fiction

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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Authentic Science Fiction

A 1950s UK science fiction magazine. FA for comparison: Fantastic Universe. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A straightforward, well-rounded article. Gave it a once over and can't really fault it with anything. Circeus 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~ Support. Generally seems very good and was enjoyable to read.
- For articles such as these, should the alternate titles for the publication, as described in the 'History and Context' section if not the later 'Bibliographic Details' section, be in bold font, per normal WP alternate title convention? Unclear to me what the regular practice is. The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Analog Science Fiction and Fact do this, for example, while Fantastic (magazine) does not.
- "The Rose" is in italics in the lead section, but in double quotes in the 'Contents and critical opinion' section.
- There is only one article-space wlink to the article, from Science fiction magazine. An FA article should be easier to run across! Philip E. High is missing some wlinks including to this; maybe you could add a mention to the Charles L. Harness, Edwin Charles Tubb, William F. Temple, and Ken Bulmer articles as well. Wasted Time R 11:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:

For articles such as these -- I don't think there is a convention, so if you don't mind I think I'd like to avoid doing this in this case. There are enough different titles that it would really clutter up the first sentence of the lead and make it hard to read.
"The Rose" -- Good catch; it should be in quotes as it's a short story. Fixed.
There is only one article-space wlink -- I'll go around and add a few; good suggestion.

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning towards~~ support This article was informative and a pleasure to read. It is well-written, well-researched (especially for such an obscure topic), and stable.

In the third paragraph of "Content and criticism", the article quotes some assessments of the novels printed in the magazine. Could those assessments be attached to someone? "SF scholar X..."
In the fifth paragraph of "Content and criticism", the article cites the names of the people with the quotes, but doesn't tell the reader why s/he should trust them. Could you briefly identify them? "Historian of SF...."
The only thing that was perhaps missing (and this could easily be because the sources don't provide it) was an analysis of the kinds of SF stories the magazine published. Did they focus on any particular subgenres, for example?

I have a small list of prose nitpicks, but as they do not affect my support of the article, I have placed them on the article's talk page. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

In the third paragraph -- done.
In the fifth paragraph -- this is a little harder. Ashley's been identified in the third paragraph, so I think we can leave him out. The other opinions are from Kyle, Tuck, and the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia. Kyle is simply someone who wrote a pictorial history of sf; the only scholarly validation here is that he got his book published -- he's not an academic. Tuck is the author of a very useful sf encyclopedia; his expertise is widely acknowledged within the field, but more as a bibliographer. His critical opinions are just his opinions. The Nicholls/Clute article was written by Parnell and Nicholls; Nicholls is an academic, but I don't know about Parnell, and of course I don't know which of the two of them wrote that particular sentence. I used these sources because they're all I could find, I'm afraid. Ashley is very well-respected as the leading historian of sf, so his opinion must be counted for something. I'm having a harder time figuring out how to describe the others. Maybe "Donald Tuck's opinion, in his Encyclopedia of SF", and similarly with Kyle? And I don't quite see what to do about the Nicholls/Clute. Any suggestions gratefully received!

Ashley - agreed
Kyle - what about just the title of the book?
Tuck - expert in SF?
Nicholls/Clute/Parnell - just the title of the encyclopedia? Awadewit | talk 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- take a look and see what you think. By the way, my note about "sf" vs. "SF" on the talk page was in error; I've corrected it on the talk page, if you are still concerned about that point. Mike Christie (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good. Awadewit | talk 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing -- I don't think there was a specific subgenre that Authentic stuck to; I've not read all that many of the stories myself, though I've read some, and the sources I have don't remark on any focus. So I think we can leave this.

I thought that was probably the case. Awadewit | talk 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. If you could let me know what you think I should do about those attributions that would be very helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.