Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fantasy Book/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2017 [1].

Fantasy Book

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Book was a semi-professional science fiction magazine that appeared at the end of the 1940s, published by William Crawford, a fan who went into publishing but never had much money to invest in the business. He occasionally managed to print some surprisingly good material, though. There aren't many sources, but I've included what I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well, it's short, but the sources are what they are. Interesting if only for Cordwainer Smith, though I really prefer Norstrilia. Only comments:

Is there anything on how the subscriptions worked, given the irregular publication schedule?
Nothing I've been able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would link Dianetics, scientology.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

Small, but (almost) perfectly formed. A couple of nitpicks you may want to address

The figure "8" in the first line should be spelt out as "eight" per mos for numbers less than 10

You repeatedly use "sf" but it's never linked or glossed, eg "science fiction (sf)" on first occurrence.

Seems slightly odd to link Cordwainer Smith as a redirect from his birth name rather than directly from his pen name

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a gloss of "sf" in the first sentence of the body; did you miss that? Should I put it somewhere else? I fixed the other two points. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Who is Milo? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "Its cover, by 'Milo', illustrates..." which tells me that the credit in the magazine is just "Milo" and no more information is available. Per the ISFDB there are no other covers attributed to Milo. If I had to guess I'd say it was a friend of Crawford's who wasn't a professional artist. I could make the caption "...by 'Milo', about whom no more information is given", if that's more helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest "Milo" (with the quotes) for the caption and further explanation on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review, you altruist you. When are you going to get yourself another gold star? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

I'll review this fully soon. First thought, could we have dates in the image captions? FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is stated in the table, but could a date be added to "By the time the first issue was printed"? You also give a date for the last issue in-text.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by "semi-professional? The linked article does not really explain it, and that article itself has a link that only goes to an article about editing in general...
I added a note which I hope covers this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, seems the article about the prize could use the note too, seems to be an FA after all... --FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me now, short article, little to nitpick. --FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

Recusing from coord duties, copyedited a bit as usual but little to complain about prose-wise; these are nitpicks:

"his budget limited the quality of the paper he could afford and the artwork he was able to buy"... I was originally going to query whether we couldn't trim this to "his budget limited the quality of the paper and the artwork he was able to buy" or some such, but I'm also wondering if it's a bit too self-evident a statement anyway... Budgets always limit what you can afford/buy but that doesn't always mean you can only buy substandard stuff. I assume in this case we do mean the quality of the paper was generally inferior and the quality or amount (or both) of artwork was poor -- can/should we be a bit more explicit?
Ashley implies that it was the budget, but his point is really that Crawford used whatever paper he could find, which was often poor quality, so I think it's better to cut the reference to cost -- as you say, it's kind of obvious anyway. The important point is that he didn't have easy access to good paper. I think it's a bit clearer now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"news-stand" -- is the hyphen an Americanism? I'd have expected "newsstand".
Oops; just a mistake. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from my first point: "Crawford's budget limited the artwork he could acquire" -- is the source any clearer about whether the limitation was in quality, or quantity, or both?
Ashley is definite that this was a cost issue, so I've clarified this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and level of detail seem fine -- I wouldn't expect a lot on such a short-lived mag (neither of my main references, Holdstock and Aldiss, even mention it!). I'll take Nikki's image review as read -- source review to follow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a fairly obscure magazine. I think it would get mentioned even less than it does if it weren't for "Scanners Live in Vain". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All book references and the online sf-encyclopedia.com are by major authors in the field; philsp.com looks more of an enthusiast's site (correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears to be used only for self-evident info re. covers and pricing so I don't think it's an issue in any case.
It's run by this guy; he's certainly an enthusiast but he's also a respected bibliographer, so I think the site is reliable for our purposes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting generally looks good but you could standardise the date formatting in FNs 1 and 5.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both reviews, and for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.