Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tomorrow Speculative Fiction/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [1].

Tomorrow Speculative Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a science fiction magazine edited by Algis Budrys in the 1990s. It began as a print magazine and was one of the first to attempt the migration to an online format, but Budrys could not get enough subscribers to make the magazine profitable. It was never a major force in the genre, but it published material by some well known writers, including Ursula Le Guin and Harlan Ellison.

I have a possible conflict of interest to declare: I sold a story to Budrys, and it appeared in the first issue of the magazine. The article does not mention it (nor do I think it should) so I hope this does not amount to a real conflict, but I wanted to make sure reviewers were aware of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

"It was launched by Pulphouse Publishing as part of an attempt to move away from book publishing to magazines". I first read this sentence differently to its actual meaning. I suggest changing to "It was launched by Pulphouse Publishing as part of its attempt to move away from book publishing to magazines". This would clarify it was Pulphouse Publishing that was making the "attempt".
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would link Pulphouse Publishing in the lead.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the late 1990s". Is that meant to be the late 1980s?
Oops. Yes; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention the rebranded name "tomorrowsf" in the lead.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "The Mines of Behemoth" in italics and not quotation marks like the other stories?
It's a novel, not a short story; it was serialized over three issues. I've changed the description from "story" to "novel". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my comments for now. Steelkamp (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- all addressed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all addressed and I can't think of anything else. Support. Steelkamp (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The image is missing alt text and needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added alt text. I've expanded the FUR; I took the text more or less verbatim from the license statement in {{Non-free magazine cover}}. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Are Pulphouse: A Weekly Magazine or Pulphouse Fiction Spotlight worth redlinking?
I didn't do so because in both cases the current natural target would be Pulphouse Publishing which is already linked, so it would be redundant. The former might be a separate article one day; I'm less sure about the latter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tomorrow was a finalist for the Hugo Award for Best Semiprozine in both 1994 and 1995." Have you considered mentioning what it lost to?
Good idea. Done in the body; I think it would be excessive detail in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is William Esrac worth redlinking? How about "The Measure of All Things"?
Esrac's not in the online Encyclopedia of SF, so I think probably not. I redlinked the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen that there's a review of the first issue of the magazine on page 137-8 of SFRA Review #204? (here)
I hadn't seen that; thanks for the link. I was avoiding using reviews of only the first issue as perhaps not being representative; the assessments I've used, primarily from Ashley, are opinions on the magazine overall. I might be being a bit cautious here because the Locus review of the first issue discusses my own story in that issue, and I wanted to steer clear of that. Locus reviewed most, perhaps all, of the individual issues, but it would be hard to pull anything summarizing out of twenty paragraphs in separate columns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you don't want to attempt to summarize every review. But I do encourage you to reflect upon how to draw upon these reviews. The article is not substantial -- that's fine, of course, if that's all there is out there, but when there are other sources that aren't drawn upon, that does raise some questions. (I wouldn't worry too much about the COI issue.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews are generally story-by-story reviews of the contents of each issue, which I think is unpromising, but I'll look through. There might be general statements about the direction of the magazine, or particularly strong statements about individual stories that might be worth using -- e.g. if a given story was the reviewer's favourite of the year. I'll ping you when I've gone through them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, I've added a couple of sentences based on Kelly's comments -- he praised one of Le Guin's stories strongly enough for me to add a reference to that, and his review of the website seemed also worth referencing. And I found a couple of general statements of his opinion of the magazine that I could use. Thanks for nudging me to go through these; it was definitely worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning that some of the work published was in translation? I mention only because I noticed translators listed on this page.
Ashley doesn't mention it and I'm not sure the link you give is enough for it to be worth pulling out as a separate comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered adding a photo of the editor or some of the contributors? (A picture of the editor, in particular, could be useful if/when the article ever hits the main page.)
Good idea; I should have thought of that. Added a photo of Budrys. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing it! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; must not have saved that. Added now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the website still online? If so, it should be linked! If not, perhaps you could link it using the Wayback Machine?
It's no longer online. This is an archive link; I've added that to the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to refer to the magazine as Tomorrow when describing it after the rebranding? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I do, do I? I have to confess it wasn't deliberate, but looking through the prose just now I think every use of Tomorrow refers to the print version; I never directly use a name for the website after first giving its details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; my mistake. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, just checking to see if you have more comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I'm stretched for time, but I'll hopefully be back for another look soon. Directors, please don't hold up the review on my account! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

"Readership grew while the magazine was free to read on the web, but when he began charging for subscriptions readership plummeted." "readership" twice in the sentence?
"In the late 1990s". Typo?
"published in print and online in the United States from 1993 ..." But it actually started publication in 1992.

And that's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed; I decided not to explain in the lead why the start year is not the cover date of the first issue -- the body goes into more detail and I think it would be excessive detail to explain that in the lead. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

I'll try to find the time to do a full review. For now, I'll start by noting that the "The" is part of the title of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (they are at times inconsistent in how they present the title, to be sure, but the self-referential entry is titled "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, The"). TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

The article seems rather brief, though perhaps there isn't much to say about a magazine that had such a short run.
I don't think there's significant content missing. I do have access to reviews of many individual issues, but other than a couple of general comments that I've already made use of, they consist of analysis of the individual stories and aren't really suited to this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction notes that "Nothing of the website remains and detailed contents data have been lost, although much or all of the content is preserved in somewhat disorganized form at the Internet Archive". That the website is defunct (not just no-longer-updated) should be stated explicitly somewhere in the article for comprehrensiveness. That the contents have been preserved is, I think, optional to include.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The balance seems off here; almost the entire lead is about the publishing history, whereas roughly half the body is about the contents.
Yes, fair comment. Have added a bit. I don't want to add too much as the article is quite short.Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing history

Not a big problem now, but as a matter of future-proofing I would suggest adding an inflation adjustment template.
I added one for the initial price; rather than clutter the word rate sentence with a template I think the reader can get a general sense of the increase since 1992 and mentally apply it to the later numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"payment rates of three to seven cents per word" – was this a typical, low-end, or high-end rate?
I don't have a source I can use for this. My own recollection is this was a range that would attract new writers at the low end and would be considered decent by established writers at the high end, but I can't source that. The only book I have that might cover this is the 1990 SFWA Handbook, and (perhaps surprisingly) it only talks about rates for books, not short stories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says at the "Tomorrow: Speculative Fiction" entry that "Although Budrys's pay rate was on the low-side of professional (around 4¢ a word) he was able to attract many major names", and the "prozine" entry speaks a bit about rates more generally. TompaDompa (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added something in a note, since I think this is more background information than key to the narrative. Thanks for the pointer. I checked the print edition of the SFE and it doesn't have a "Prozine" entry which is a pity; I was hoping it would give rate information generally for the 1990s. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contents and reception

"This included book reviews and a column by Thomas Easton." – book reviews and a column, both by Easton, or a column by Easton and book reviews?
The latter; rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic details

"Budrys was Tomorrow's editor throughout the magazine's life." – a bit odd to refer to a magazine's life, perhaps.
I'd like to leave this, unless you can think of a better term -- seems a fairly natural figurative use to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "run"? TompaDompa (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Budrys' essays on writing which had appeared in nine of the first ten issues" – not really important, but the missing one could be specified as June 1994 (https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/tomorrow_speculative_fiction).
I think this is a minor point that the reader doesn't need to know. SFE3 mentions it only because they're in the habit of specifying the first publication of any work they discuss, so they have to mention the issue that's not included in the date range they give. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support Looks good to me, though I'm not at all confident that I would be able to pick up on serious issues with an article on this topic. TompaDompa (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Extended content

There is no Ashley 2021. Is it meant to be 2022?
Yes; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why the pp. 49–53 isn't broken down further to be easier for lookup, given the number of times it's separately referenced?
Reduced the page ranges, and did the same for a couple of other page ranges. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley 2016, pp. 183–188. Isn't it just on 183 and 184? What's on 185–188?
I think this was left over from an earlier draft that used material from the later pages, but you're right it's not needed. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tomorrow Speculative Fiction" citations have no issue/volume number
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction be linked if Locus is?
Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked Ashley 2016, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction/SFE but cannot vouch for sentences that cite multiple sources

The author of "Replay" looks familiar :)
Yes, my only fiction sale! I had more or less quit writing by that time, but I'd been in a workshop with Budrys after submitting it to the Writers of the Future competition in about 1988, and when he started Tomorrow he remembered it and asked me to submit it. It was listed as one of the stories of the month in the Locus review, which was nice -- though Kelly also had a negative comment (probably justified) about the story! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

czar 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Budry added "non-fiction" depts sounds like it'd be about news reporting not just "not fiction"—recommend dropping that part
I see you went ahead and did this; your edit is fine, but FYI this is the way the term is used in sources about fiction magazines -- see here, for example, and search for "nonfiction". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it but since that's potentially confusing for a general reader, I recommend not using it that way czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Anonymous", isn't the WP norm here to not attribute the author? See "To cite a journal article with no credited author" in Template:Cite journal
I don't like doing it that way -- I think it's easier for the reader to find the source if they know immediately to look under "Anonymous" in the alphabetized list of sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably if lookup is the concern then the best method is to link directly, such as using the {{sfn}} template, though that's not required for the FAC criteria. Listing several reviews as "Anonymous" also gives some false impression that they're related. What is the precedent for crediting to "Anonymous"? Most citation styles use the citation title in lieu of listing an anonymous author, and then use another identifying element (publication name?) in the short citation. czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make this change if you think it's necessary but as a reader I don't like the approach of sorting by title, with no name given, though I know opinions vary on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that identifiers are helpful on source citations but not required
There are ISBNs on the two books -- are you suggesting ISSNs? I can add them if you think it's worthwhile, but I've seen discussions complaining about identifier spam on citations, so I typically don't bother with them unless requested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISSN or OCLC for the ones lacking an identifier—basically some way for a reader to look them up in a library without having to do a lot of searching. I personally find them very much worthwhile. In the case of this source review, I was left to do a lot of searching to confirm whether there are easily accessible copies of the sources without identifiers. But this is not in the FAC criteria, so your call. czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; ISSNs added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you get asked this every time but what makes Galactic Central a high-quality source, per the FAC criteria?
See this; Phil (and Contento, now deceased, the main collaborator) is a highly-respected bibliographer in the field. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that pedigree, I could see citing Stephensen-Payne in a limited fashion for bibliography-related details as an expert self-published source used to fill vital cracks in the story, but it is currently used heavily, for detail that goes beyond that remit. I know it's been used in multiple other FAs so I don't feel strongly enough here to contest it, but I do think that a similar source would likely not pass muster for, say, a video game FA or another type of creative work. czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's only bibliographic information that's cited to Galactic Central -- what are you seeing that you think shouldn't be cited to it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Paul Janvier contribution noteworthy enough to mention? It cites a primary source and a SFE dicdef
I could cite Ashley too, who as I recall also mentions it; it's because it's actually Budrys, who is a notable writer in his own right. The SFE3 reference is just because we have to show Janvier is a pseudonym -- again I think I can get that from Ashley if you prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swapping the citation for Ashley would give it a secondary source justification, so that sounds good. It reads as a piece of trivia currently, when sourced mainly to a primary source. czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Will make this change on Monday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1990s Locus sources look to be only offline but I'd be curious to check a few if online somewhere
Send me an email and I'll send you some clippings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

czar 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One edit you made I would like to revisit -- both Clarion and the Writers of the Future were venues in which Budrys worked with new writers; that's why that "and" was there. I'd like to retain that connection -- any thoughts about a way to phrase it that would make that clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that wasn't a clear connection in the prior phrasing. How about this, assuming it's still supported by the source I cannot access. czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. I can't officially check that it's fully supported by the source till Monday but will do so then, though I'm sure it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked and it is fully supported, but the phrase "had enjoyed working with new writers" is identically phrased in the source (and was before you edited it). I've reworked this a little more to avoid that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing. Still a few points outstanding above but mostly style or minor and nothing afoul of the FA criteria in my estimation. czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review -- I've emailed you with the Locus clippings but I'm too tired to respond on the other points, and will be travelling tomorrow, so I might not reply till Saturday or Sunday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, all now responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing from me. In the Lead, you have "from 1992 through 1999": is this better than saying "from 1992 to 1999"? (which is shorter, says the same thing and is more international in usage, rather than something that sounds odd – to my ear, at least). That's the only query I have. How you deal with it will not affect my

Support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2024 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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