Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about two science fiction magazines that have perhaps the most confusing bibliographic history of any magazines I've ever come across. They each bore the name of the other magazine at different points in their lives. The editor, Robert W. Lowndes, at one point suggested that sorting out the bibliographic details was no more confusing than understanding alternate time tracks. Normally I would create a separate article for each of these titles, but in this case I think it makes no sense to try to separate them. Lowndes managed to do wonders with the shoestring budget he was given by the publisher; the magazines never led the field, but were well-liked by their readers. They finally ceased publication in 1960, victims of a magazine distributor who abruptly abandoned the publisher's entire magazine chain. One MoS note: I think the title of the article should, strictly speaking, be "Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories", but I don't think it's possible to create partially italic article titles of that format. If someone knows how to do it, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re title: you can use the DISPLAYTITLE template to modify italics for specific words which I have added. Feel free to revert if that's not what you're looking for. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was hoping could be done. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

All fixed; thanks for the sharp eyes, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Support Comments from Ian Rose

[edit]

Recusing myself from coord duties to review as I have a FAC open myself and, besides, I've always enjoyed the history of the sf mags...

  • A very light copyedit from me, tribute no doubt to Mike's prose skills plus Dan getting in before me. ;-)
  • I think the justification for doing a two-in-one article is valid, especially given the titles were even interchangeable!
  • Structure and referencing seen fine to me.
  • Happy to defer to Nikki on the source formatting, and reliability isn't in question.
  • I might let one of the regular image reviewers check media licensing, so will offer provisional support in the meantime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support from Protonk

[edit]

I support this article for FA. Great work by Mike. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

style/layout
[edit]
  • I'm sure Mike will love this: do we want to break out the reprints paragraphs into their own section?
    We can, but I'm not sure it's necessary -- the section is not so much complex as it is simply a grab-bag of bibliographical information. I don't think there's much to be gained from a split unless you think the section is sufficiently long that the reader needs a divider there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Protonk (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should what is now footnote 39 ("See the individual issues. For convenience, an online index is available at "Future/Future Combined with Science Fiction - Issue Grid". Al von Ruff. Retrieved 19 July 2014.") be an explanatory note instead?
    I can make the change, but let me explain why it's the way it is now. The issues are reliable sources; the ISFDB is not, by Wikipedia standards, at least. However, practically speaking, for things like this, it is very reliable, and it's a real convenience to the reader. I mention it so that a reader can get access to it, but I can't treat it as an RS. I thought of this more as a pair of resources, one RS, one not, rather than an editorial comment, so I made it a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look at some other FA/GAs with similar notes and see what the common practice is. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about this a bit more, I think it should be a note. If the ISFDB is not an RS but we as editors think it is useful, then a pointer to it in an explanatory note is almost precisely what we want. We're not so much referencing the claims (Ashley & Thompson and Ashley do that for us, respectively). We're extending an offer to peruse a resource we find handy. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. It was used twice, and I don't know if it's possible to do a "reuse citation" with this format, so I just made the second one a footnote, which I think is appropriate anyway because there's no need to repeat the explanatory part of the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can mix groups and names. I've done just that and they now point to the same note. Protonk (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should redlink Louis Silberkleit (He's also the co-founder of the Archie comics, so he'll have an article at some point)
  • Publication history tables should be updated to use the correct class for colors (see this edit on Comet). Otherwise they will fail to render properly to mobile readers. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I'm curious: what's the problem with the other syntax? Is that a bug in mobile or a nonstandard syntax? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking to some editors on IRC I discovered the old style is deprecated. Why it renders on desktop and not mobile is probably a very good question but eventually we should transition away from it (even if it didn't fail to render on mobile). Protonk (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink the first use of "digest" to Digest size if it isn't already.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
content
[edit]
  • "...two American science fiction magazines that were published under different names..." I think "various" may be better than "different"
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The editor was Charles Hornig for the first few issues..." Perhaps "first edited by" or "first helmed by" (if we want some flourish)
    I tried a different rephrase; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magazines both lasted, on very slim budgets..." Do we mention the "slim budgets" in the body of the article? Ok, I see it now at the end of Contents and Reception. That's a bit narrower of a claim than we make in the lede but it's probably fine. Maybe something like, "budgets dwindled near the end of the decade"? As is, the sentence is a bit awkward, regardless of how well/poorly it summarises the content.
    You're right; that's an awkward sentence. Reworked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we devote some space in the lede to talk about the dizzying array of name changes that the magazines underwent? We talk about some of them, but I don't know if we want to mention the rest.
    I can't think of a good place to do this -- it's complex enough that saying more than "various" gets quickly to two full sentences, and though it's an interesting oddity about the magazines I don't think it's a major enough fact to require being in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I've re-read the lede and I agree. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 1940, Hornig, who was a pacifist, received his military call-up. He decided to move to California and register as a conscientious objector" The note about pacifism is perhaps better placed in the second sentence. Also I seem to remember (though I can't find it now) that Hornig worked as a forester and our article on him says he was sent to Oregon. I'm not saying that specific bit of trivia belongs here but we do mention he went to CA and I'm seeing other things elsewhere
    That section in the Hornig article is unreferenced; I do have Davin's Pioneers of Wonder, which has an interview with Hornig, but I don't think much more about him is needed. Agree about the sentence structure and have made that change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. I'll strike this. If I find a source that's worth using which mentions something on his wartime activities worth mentioning vis a vis Future I'll bring it up on the article talk page. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The June 1943 issue was the last for some years: Silberkleit..." Why is this a colon? I'm a grammarian's worst enemy, so that question could come from my ignorance.
    I'm no grammarian either but this gives what I think is a good explanation of why I use colons in that situation: for explanations preceded by clauses that can stand by themselves (like this sentence). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...some reference books do index the magazine under "O"." maybe just "index" rather than "do index"?
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotta love the Lowndes blockquote. Don't let anyone tell you to remove it. :)
    :o)
  • "...the stories sent to Hornig had usually already been rejected by the better-paying markets..." do we mean markets, as in the stories went to other genres, formats or countries? Or do we mean magazines?
    I meant magazines; this is a common usage in the sources. It's not quite right to use "magazines" because, for example, you actually sent stories to the editor, who might edit multiple magazines, as both Lowndes and Hornig did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
other sources
[edit]

Note on the below section: These are all suggestions. They are (near as I can tell) not in the article right now, but peruse them at your discretion and determine if they're helpful or not.

  • Hugo Gernsback and the Century of Science Fiction by Gary Westfall (2007) ISBN 0786430796
    • p. 10 talks about Hornig (probably) writing an unsigned editorial in Future (July 42) about Gernsback as the father of pulp sf
    • pp. 42-43 talks about this in more detail.
      I can only see page 10, but the context is a rebuttal of a particular view of Gernsback, and the editorial in Science Fiction is significant in that context. I think this would be useful in the article on Gernsback, but I don't think it's relevant here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The only relevance I can see (and this is totally up to you, I have no strong opinions) is including it in a note about non-fiction elements in the mags. e.g. "the magazine also ran editorials, etc." should that be something we want to include. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think so -- I typically mention non-fiction elements when a secondary source mentions them as noteworthy in some way. A reference to them in the context of discussing something else doesn't seem enough to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably not worth it in this case. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.M. Kornbluth: The Life and Works of a Science Fiction Visionary by Mark Rich (2009) ISBN 0786457112
    • Quotes Michael Rosenbaum on Hornig's resignation (p. 75)
    • Actually, that quote represents a different story on the resignation that we have in the article
      I can't see the whole page, but it looks like a quote from a fanzine. If that's so we should go with the reliable sources rather than include it. I've ordered a copy and will take a look when it gets here, just in case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Seems worth getting (the book, not the cite) as it has come up multiple times across these magazine reviews. :) Protonk (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canada's Pioneer Science-Fantasy Magazine (La première revue canadienne de science fantaisie)" Moskowitz, Sam in Science Fiction Studies 13 (1) (1990)
    • Indicates that a canadian edition of Science Fiction was published, with a hoo-ah style remark of Canadian patriotism despite only the actual printing and distributing being done in Canada (p. 89).
      This is a good catch; thanks. Ashley and Thompson don't mention a Canadian reprint in the article in Tymn & Ashley, so I was surprised to see this. Some checking revealed that it's because they list it as a separate magazine under the heading "Science Fiction (Canadian)". It was apparently just a reprint vehicle for Silberkleit's magazines, and reprinted from all three of his then-current titles, so it's not strictly a reprint edition of Science Fiction, but for our purposes it belongs in this article, so I added a paragraph on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a bit persnickity, but do you mind adding the Moskowitz ref for that claim as well? Protonk (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure; done. That article is going to be very useful for Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp magazine). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange Highways: Reading Science Fantasy, 1950-1967 by John Boston and Damien Broderick (2013) ISBN 1434447464
  • Not germane to this article but according to p. 217 of Mike Ashely's The Gernsback Days: A Study of the Evolution of Modern Science Fiction from 1911 to 1936 there was another magazine called Science Fiction published in 1932-1933 by Jerome Seigel.
    That was a fanzine; see here. As you say, not strictly relevant here. Generally I don't think fanzines need to be mentioned unless a secondary source makes a point of doing so, though this is an unusually well-known one because of Siegel's subsequent history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CaroleHenson

[edit]

I've reviewed the article, made a few very minor tweaks, and find the article to be a good one. It looks to be a great collaborative effort, too! Great job!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

[edit]

This one fell off the radar somehow (you can always use Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Image/source_check_requests or ping an image reviewer, if necessary):

  • All images are PD (in the US) and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • A quick search for copyright records did not reveal any matches, as claimed ("no notice" / "no renewal") - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hate to nag; I figure someone will get to it eventually, and I don't mind waiting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 21 September 2014 (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/Future_Science_Fiction_and_Science_Fiction_Stories/archive1&oldid=1138461294"