Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scoops (magazine)/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) 18 March 2019 [1].

Scoops (magazine)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "the biggest blunder British science fiction ever made": a short-lived weekly boys paper that was born and died in 1934. The paper would be quite forgotten now if it were not the first attempt at a regular British science fiction magazine. There's little of literary value to see here, but I hope it's interesting for its own sake. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • published by Pearson's — Why no link?
    An oversight; now linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearson's cancelled the magazine because of poor sales; the last issue was dated 23 June 1934 — You could mention that only twenty issues were printed.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history and contents

  • This section feels a bit long. Perhaps turn the first paragraph into a "Background" section?
    Normally I try to keep "Publication history" and "Contents and reception" separate, but here I found it difficult because it's natural to delay the discussion of the end of the magazine until the problems with the content have been discussed, so yes, it is a little longer than I would prefer. I think a "Background" section with the first paragraph would look at bit too short, though. I can make the change if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • science fiction (sf) — Are you sure you need to abbreviate science fiction?
    I use the abbreviation when I find myself writing "science fiction" out in full too many times; I assume that if I'm tired of writing it, readers are getting tired of reading it. The highest density is in the last paragraph where "science fiction" occurs twice and "sf" five times in nine sentences. Do you think removing the abbreviation wouldn't make that paragraph harder to read? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sf" feels a bit in-worldy. Up to you, but I might consider finding ways to spell it out and rephrase other mentions (see, e.g., the edit I just made).
    I'd like to leave this for other reviewers to comment on before making a change. Since you posted, Josh edited the article in the other direction, adding more uses of the "sf". Specialist sources such as SFE3 use the abbreviation, and I think it doesn't hurt for a reader of a topic to be gently introduced to some of the terminology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - I didn't realise there was an ongoing discussion, otherwise I wouldn't have touched it. I think I would prefer not to abbreviate, but that's just a personal preference. I do feel, though, that if you are going to abbreviate, you should abbreviate consistently (hence my edit). Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and removed the abbreviation since you both suggest doing so. Usernameunique, I saw your edit but didn't see any other opportunities to substitute "genre" as you did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the vision of Jules Verne — link?
    Done. I had a vague memory that the MoS forbade linking from quotes, but I was misremembering. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scoops would publish stories that "...look ahead — You don't need the elipsis; the fact that the l is unaltered (i.e., not [l]ook) is indication enough that you're quoting mid-sentence. Also, you don't begin Mike Ashley's quotation later with an elipsis.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • they did not understand the new genre — How so?
    The source says "But the editors obviously had no understanding of American science-fiction. Instead of imitating the American genre magazines, they assembled a conglomeration of story-types from the general boys' papers. These included aviation stories (perhaps influenced by the American air war pulp magazines), menace stories, invention stories, hero stories, and similar subgenres." Bleiler presumes that the reader does understand American sf, which may not be true for all readers of this article, but it's not easy to see how to clarify this given the source. Do you think this requires some expansion? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is W.O.G. Lofts?
    He is mentioned by both Ashley and Bleiler without explanation. Apparently he had access to some of the company records and original contributors and is the source for some of the story attributions; he is also the reason we know about the arrangement with Speaights. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a good obit here, for your footnote. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll stub an article on him in the next day or so using that; very interesting. I think I can just call him "a researcher" for this article, and link him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now stubbed and linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic details

  • Scoops was published by C.A. Pearson — Above, you gave his name as C. Arthur Pearson.
    Fixed -- the sources are inconsistent on this. If I had copies I'd use whatever form the magazine itself used. (But see below!) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the magazine is now rare and commands high prices. — How high? Any relevant sales history?
    Bleiler doesn't give amounts, but there are copies for sale right now for $40-$100. There's also a complete bound set available for $340 (which I'm negotiating with the dealer for). Perhaps this is isn't a high enough price for the rarity to be mentioned, but Bleiler mentions it so I thought I'd include it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can find a website with a sold listing (e.g., an auction), it might be worth adding. Totally discretionary though. It's just hard to figure out, without context, whether "high" means $50, $100, $500, or $1,000.
    I'll have a look and see if I can find something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Ashley 2004: Does "The Gernsback Days" really run from page 16 to page 254?
    Yes -- it's really two books in one cover; one is a collection of reminiscences by Lowndes, and the other is Ashley's history of the magazines. I listed it as a jointly edited book for lack of a better idea on how to represent it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short article, but looks like you're been beat out for the top prize. Maybe add a bit to Tropical Depression Ten (2005)? --Usernameunique (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

——SerialNumber54129 08:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. I usually make 1,000 words my minimum bar for FA rather than GA, and this squeaks over that. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Mike Christie. A few comments above. One other thought: would it be worth including a chart listing the 20 different issues, their dates, and perhaps their contents (or contributing authors)? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that that might overwhelm the article. Here is an online index; perhaps I could just link to that in an "External links" section? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. You could undoubtedly get away with a list of Scoops issues article too, if you're so inclined. Anyways, no further suggestions, so you've got my support. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
External link now added. I had to use a different link; the one above doesn't have a stable URL. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Mike Christie: I am surprised they are still copyrighted; when will they fall out of copyright? Kees08 (Talk) 15:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this it's 70 years after the death of the author/artist, as far as I can tell. The artists would have had to have died by 1949 for them to be out of copyright, which is not particularly likely. A 25-year-old artist in 1934 might well be alive in 1994, so copyright might not expire till 2064. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT the likely copyright expiration would be 2029 in the US. For works by unknown authors during this time period in the UK, copyright expiration is 70 years after publication, meaning it's already PD in the UK. However, it became so after the URAA date, meaning that copyright was restored in the US and extends to 95 years after publication. See WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. I was worried I got this one wrong, but the difference is between UK and US copyright, right? Kees08 (Talk) 02:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - assuming the copyright wasn't renewed (haven't checked) the copyright would have expired in the US, and since the US is country of origin as well, that one's good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
A footnote will be redundant once the article is created, so should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (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/Scoops_(magazine)/archive1&oldid=888413626"