Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saturn (magazine)/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2020 [1].

Saturn (magazine)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an obscure magazine that began by publishing science fiction, and ended as a weird menace magazine. As with many of the shorter-lived magazines from the 1950s it rarely published distinguished material, but the editor, Donald Wollheim, was able to get quite a few well-known writers to contribute. The five science fiction issues have much more coverage in the sources than the remaining twenty-two, which means the article is not very balanced, but unfortunately that seems to be it for reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Suppport by Ceoil

Does Galactic Central have editorial oversight
Yes, see the second paragraph here. The website is owned by Stephensen-Payne; Contento is the "main editor". Not sure if that means I should credit Contento in the citation -- I left it the way the automatic cite generator did it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Ceoil (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All other sources are all high quality, though noting that of the 8 refs, 4 are at least partially attributed to Ashley. Not sure this is actionable, if assurance can be given that the article incorporates all of the available RS's.
I've included everything I could find. For the detective issues, Cook is the only specialist reference I know that covers this magazine in enough detail to use, but as it turned out Sanders & Ashley's article was more detailed than Cook so I've used them for most of the material. Ashley is the leading expert on sf magazine history so he's almost always going to show up as the most-used source in these articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take this at face value, and it ties in with my own (10 minute) attempt at research. Ceoil (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs are consistently formatted.
Writing is very good, made some trivial edits. Only thing that stands out is in the lead, we have emphasized sex and violence and then emphasis on sex and violence.
Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who said "relied on various ways of torturing women".
Sanders and Ashley; now attributed inline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify that John Giunta, the art director was (presumably) publisher Robert C. Sproul's in-house art director, otherwise its a bit the magazines art director was its art director.
I cut "the art director"; I think you're right that it's not exactly surprising that the art director did the art. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, should Robert C. Sproul be ... Robert C. Sproul ltd, ie did he own the publishing company. This is not clear to me, nor is the publishing location.
The publishing company is Candar Publishing Company, Inc. -- I left the details to the end of the "Bibliographic details" section, since I think they're not very interesting to the reader. Sproul had several different companies for publishing his magazines; I don't know the full list, but for example Cracked was published by Major Publications, and Sure Fire Detective Story Magazine was published by Pontiac Publications; both were owned by Sproul. It's possible he had a separate company for each magazine, but I don't know that for sure. So talking about the company as if it were the driving force behind the magazine is almost misleading -- it's really Sproul who is making things happen and making the decision. Candar's official address is in Holyoke, Massachusetts; that's what's listed on the masthead. However, Sanders and Ashley list three different Manhattan offices as "editorial offices" at the same time. I would guess that Sproul's home was in Holyoke but Ace's offices were at the Manhattan addresses, so he registered the company from his home but conducted the business from his father's or Wyn's office. That's just a guess though, and I don't see any way to add anything about this to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the important point is who was pUlling the purse stings; ultimately wanting the word sex in the bi-lines,and controlling the monthly budget. Otherwise local management might be viewed as taking the fall. Are you comfortable with how you have converyed this. Ceoil (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be Sproul; it's clear he owned Candar and was making the overall decisions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear, but since you're asking, perhaps Wehwalt wouldn't mind commenting, since he's reviewing the article too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say what the sources say. You have to be careful not to indulge in synthesis. I too would welcome more light on the decisions on the transformations, but if the sources aren't forthcoming, what can you do? Sometimes the reasons for things die with the people who made them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt hasnt added much in that comment, and frankly I wouldn't have been so blasé, and am not not so sure the sources (who are, I might add, mostly Ashley, or derived from Ashley) are so close to the truth, but that is another mater, outside the scope of this FAC. What I was about was your editorial judgement. Ceoil (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fair question to ask. I am completely confident that Sproul took responsibility for the direction of the magazine; that's something that is hard to cite because it's in the "sky is blue" category for magazine history -- owners and publishers chose the direction of their magazines, and the editors had to follow their instructions, though it's certainly true that some editors were given quite a bit of freedom. Sanders and Ashley only list Wollheim as editor "for the Saturn issues", which *could* mean he edited the detective titles, but since they only regard the five sf issues as within their remit I think that's unlikely. Cook says the editor is "not known" for all issues, though Sproul is listed as editor on the masthead for at least the sf issues. I can't check the later issues since I only own the first five, but I would guess that Sproul stayed listed as editor for all 27 issues, and picked someone else from Wyn's editorial staff to take over from Wollheim for the post-sf issues. That person wasn't credited -- not that rare (e.g. I don't think Sure Fire Detective credited the editor either). So there's nothing in the sources to say who actually did the editing work for the detective issues. Given that I know Sproul owned the magazine, and that Ashley's phrasing (in the 2005 source) definitely attributes decisions to Sproul ("[Sproul] decided to convert Saturn into a detective magazine"), and that Sanders and Ashley quote a letter from Wollheim in which Wollheim describes Sproul as making the decision about the second-class mailing permit, I've no hesitation about Sproul being the one in control. Having said all that, I have not put in a lot of "Sproul decided" in the section about contents and reception; there's really just "Sproul began publishing weird menace fiction", with the rest done in passive voice. I can expand the references to Sproul if you think it's necessary, but I thought it would be implied. Perhaps that's just me assuming knowledge about magazine publishing that is not shared by everyone (I'm about to make exactly that kind of complaint at a hurrican FAC so I know it's a real possibility.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is good with me. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You interchange science fiction and sf inconsistently.
I use sf as an abbreviation when I think "science fiction" is repeated so much it needs to be abbreviated to avoid sounding tedious to the reader, so I vary it back and forth for rhythm. I think this is usual practice for abbreviations -- making it "sf" throughout would be repetitive too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) ~~12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through, thoroughlying enjoying, and leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Support Just one comment below. Short, but if that's all there is, that's all there is. What there is, is the usual good read.

"a third sf story, "Orbit of the Pain-Masters", by Arthur P. Gordon, is described as "dreadful even by old pulp standards" by Sanders and Ashley.[1][5]" I might rephrase the ending as "is described as by Sanders and Ashley as "dreadful even by old pulp standards".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done as part of the fixes for Ceoil's comments. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Personally, I'd like to see the various titles the magazine went by bolded in the lead.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again (personal view) I'm not keen on the white space under the lead.
Not sure what you're seeing here. The ToC causes some white space, but that's unavoidable, isn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any difference -- I guess it depends on the skin you're using. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The first issue was subtitled "The Magazine of Science Fiction"; "Fantasy" was" So was the new subtitle "The Magazine of Science Fiction Fantasy"?
No, it was "The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction". I was hoping to avoid typing it out in full as that would be a clunky sentence, and the fact that "Fantasy" is part of the subtitle seems more important than spelling it out. What if I spelled it out in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could make it "and Fiction" that was added, rather than just "Fiction". But yes, a footnote would work. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done; double-checking, it was actually "Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really provide any details about the authors/artwork for the various detective stories. If I was being critical, I'd say that the article definitely feels like it's been written from more of a "scifi history" perspective. If I was super interested in 1960ss detective fiction, I might be a little disappointed by this article!
That's absolutely fair, but it reflects the sources. The only specialist source I have on the magazine that focuses on detective fiction is Michael Cook's 1983 Mystery, Detective, and Espionage Magazines, and he only gives it about 200 words, most of which covers the title changes or mentions weak sales. He does list half a dozen story titles to illustrate his comments -- e.g. for "fast-action, contemporary raw crime-adventure" he quotes four titles, two of which I included ("Jealous Husband" and "Rumble Bait"). He doesn't mention a single author, or give detailed comments about any of the stories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Do you have reason to believe there's nothing else out there? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not, alas. (have searched data bases also). My impression is that the article is short, but exhaustive and comprehensive (apologies for butting in J). Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of anything else; I do have some non-sf pulp references and I've checked those too and searched online. I did just find this, which surprised me; the SFE used not to cover weird menace at all. Unfortunately I don't think it adds anything to what I already have -- they mention "Orbit of the Pain-Masters", as Sanders and Ashley do, but Sanders and Ashley evidently read it and commented on it so that's a better source. I've added the source anyway for one fact, since Galactic Central isn't very easy to navigate to get to author information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...and now I've just realized that's not going to work. I have a weird sourcing problem which I will have to come back to after dinner; Galactic Central is the only source for something but it doesn't have stable URLs. More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are fine -- I thought I had something I had to source to Galactic Central but everything I need is in Sanders and Ashley. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, just checking in -- do you have any more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now -- I just want to think a little more on the detective stories issue. Directors, please do not hold up this review on my account. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, your comment above is noted so this is a courtesy ping to let you know that this article seems to be getting towards the end of its FAC journey, so if you do have any further thoughts or queries, best get them in in the next day or two. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further to add. I'm pleased to see that a little more has been added about the detective stories, but I don't feel comfortable either supporting or opposing at present. Thanks for the ping. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

American fiction magazine published from 1957 to 1965. It was launched as a science fiction magazine— Do you need the first "fiction"?
second-class mailing permit — It may be obvious what this means to an American reader, but can we have link or gloss to help us Brits?
OR, CT in the sources location. Again, perhaps write out the states in full, although I guess those two are relatively transparent to non-Americans compared to the various M* abbreviations

Otherwise looks pretty good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done; I found a USPS internal report that I think answers the "second-class mailing permit" question sufficiently. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All looks god, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (leaning support) from Ian

Recusing from coord duties, I've trimmed a bit but generally prose seems fine. I hear the comments re. the focus on sf v. other content but this is a pretty obscure mag by any standard and the balance in text and sources doesn't seem unreasonable to me. That said, I happened to find mention of a wiki-notable author published in its Saturn Web Detective Story Magazine incarnation if that helps... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find; thanks! Can't find a location for Surinam Turtle Press or the parent company, Ramble House, but I've added a mention and cited it to that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, do you feel able to move from your leaning position yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gog, happy to pile on with support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done

What makes galactic central a high-quality reliable source?
I've asked about this at RSN a couple of times. The site is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, whose SFE3 entry is here; I feel if the SFE3 treats it as reliable we should too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FN8 shouldn't duplicate work title in |title= - just use the displayed title of the entry
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the Ashley histories, is it correct that one is Volume 3 and the other Part 4?
Yes, one's a UK edition and the other is a US edition, which is presumably why. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Breen is missing location
I got the information from a Google Books copy and can't find the location there. Surinam Turtle Press is an imprint of Ramble House, which doesn't appear to give any physical contact information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears to be a print-on-demand publisher. What's the take on reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if it's print-on-demand or small-press or some combination; I think the latter, but in any case I think the book is a collection of Breen's columns published elsewhere and he seems to be an established mystery critic. I can no longer see the pages of the book that I cited in the article, but there may be an note at the start or end of the chapter saying where it was from, or the introduction or copyright page may list sources. Looking on Amazon I see him listed as an author, though again from small presses, and I see an example column from him here. Is that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you say there may be a note in the chapter about where it was from, are you thinking it was republished from somewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don’t recall whether that was the case; when I cited it I was thinking the book was a good enough source, so I didn’t make a mental note. But I see from one of the few pages in that book I still have access to that one chapter at least was republished from the ‘’Weekly Standard’’. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of getting access again? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just tried from another device and now I have access again! The essay was apparently originally published in 2008 in ‘’Mystery Scene’’, which has a page here that I think shows it’s at least semiprofessional and has editorial oversight —- seems like it’s been around for 35 years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Suggest then just providing the original citation details as well as the republication in the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I found a contents page for the relevant issue on the web, but there are no page numbers so I couldn't include those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kielbowicz listing is incomplete.
I'm not sure what to do about this -- it's a PDF hosted by the government, which I think is sufficient to show that it's reliable, but there's no information that I can find about it beyond what's in the PDF itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the PDF does include the commissioning agency? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does; I added the Postal Rate Commission as the publisher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

Minor comments only from me, but didn't want to pass up the opportunity to return the favor for so many reviews...

"sf" as an acronym is only used three times that I can see; is it worth not spelling out each time?
I make it four, but it's still not many. I use it to avoid repetition; I think the main area where it makes a difference is the end of the first paragraph of "Contents and reception", where we'd otherwise have four "science fiction"s in two sentences. If those sentences can be reworded to avoid the need for the abbreviation then I think it could go, but I don't see a good way to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know someone else request bolded titles above, but the way this is done, not every title the magazine ran under is bolded...
I hate to have four separate bolded titles in the lead, but I think you're right that it's needed. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason A. A. Wyn is piped to A.A. Wyn? Likewise with Lovecraft...
I've always understood the rule to be that you don't space initials in running text, but you do space them in article titles, so that's why they don't match. I think linking to the redirect rather than the actual article was probably just inattention on my part -- I link with VE which makes it very easy to pick either one. I changed the Lovecraft link, but the Wyn link looks OK unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS says it's done that way only if all sources do it that way, and I'm not familiar enough with these figures to say otherwise, so that's fine...Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized that was specified in the MOS. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"film monster magazines" isn't a term I'm too familiar with...
Unfortunately I don't think there is an article to link to, but take a look at the lead of Famous Monsters of Filmland to get an idea of the genre. I could add a footnote saying something like "This was a genre of film magazine focusing on science fiction and horror movies."; I can probably dig up a source for a statement like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might be helpful, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do this tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradley's full name is mentioned twice; necessary?
I think this is worth it -- "Bradley" might well not make a reader remember the name from the middle of a long list in the previous paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Wollheim was no longer the editor" this glosses over whether the change had anything to do with Wolmark's departure; is that known?
Unfortunately not. Sproul is probably listed as editor on the later issues (I don't have copies so can't check) but then he was listed that way on the earlier ones too, so I doubt we'll ever know what happened after the fifth issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In an article this short, need anything be relegated to the notes section?
Fair question. I've absorbed one note back into the text. The other I don't see how to eliminate without making that sentence very digressive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SFE lists a third subtitle that you don't mention...
Added. When I was putting the information in the footnote I think I was thinking that the important point was just the addition of the word "Fantasy", not the exact subtitle wording, but as you say it's a short article and there's really no need to summarize. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Sanders' and Ashley's words" should this be "Sanders and Ashley's words"; they're the words of the pair, not each individual...I'm a little fuzzy on such conventions though.
I am willing to be corrected on this but I think it's the usual way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly to satisfy my own curiosity, I did some quick searches, and found this; you've already cited Ashley many times, so I doubt this is going to have much new material, but the snippet I can see seems interesting.
That's actually the Sanders/Ashley 1985 source already in the article; Tymn & Ashley is an encyclopedia by multiple hands -- most of the entries are by Ashley but a fair number are by others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The snippet I can see says something about a "Red Flag on the Moon", which (extrapolating wildly) strikes me as something political; is that worth including? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to a post-Sputnik article and associated cover image warning sf fans to "work to prevent a 'Red Flag Over the Moon'"; Sanders and Ashley mention it as an example of Saturn's "hype [becoming] shriller in later issues". I will see if I can work this in somehow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leads for short articles are always difficult, but this one strikes me as not quite thematic and not quite chronological...I'm struggling a little to come up with a much better alternative, but even combining into a single longish paragraph, with the bits about Wolheim grouped together, would be an improvement, I think.
I like the idea of grouping the bits about Wollheim, so I've done that. I'm less sure about joining the resulting two paragraphs -- in my mind the division mirrors that of the article -- publishing history following by contents. But if you think it would read better as a single paragraph I'm willing to go along with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't feel strongly about two paragraphs, this seems fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, I'm amazed you managed to dig up even this much information on such an obscure publication. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of replies above, but happy to support now, as they are minor (as were my initial points). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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