Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Venture Science Fiction/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 SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [1].

Venture Science Fiction

[edit]

Venture Science Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venture was a short-lived companion to the much better known Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. It is fairly unusual in that it had three quite distinct incarnations, though the British edition only included reprints. I brought this to GA standard some time ago, and since then have acquired additional sources and now feel it is FA-quality. Mike Christie (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just realized that the appearance of my own name on this source link used in the article might prompt questions, so here is the background. Around 2002 the OED started a page to record citations of science fiction words. I originally ran that page, and am still involved as a volunteer. The page is under the aegis of the OED; it runs on Jesse Sheidlower's website (Jesse is the North American editor of the OED). The link is used to cite the earliest use of a term in an issue of Venture; I was the person who found and submitted that link and recorded it on that webpage. Hence to some extent it could be said I am citing myself here. I was also the person who made the day-to-day decision to include that information on the website, so though there is editorial control I exercised that control myself. Jesse Sheidlower also oversees the cite and could remove anything inappropriate, so I believe this is OK. I think the term in question, Sturgeon's Law, is now actually in the latest edition of the OED, including the citation I submitted, but since that's a pay site I would prefer to use this one if possible. If that turns out to be an unacceptable source I will check the OED3 and use that source instead. Mike Christie (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the citation is now in OED3 (which dates the term back to a private letter from Fruma Klass in 1951), it might be better to cite the OED directly and give that as a convenience link, as is now half done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you're asking for here -- is the current citation to the OED not accurate? It refers to it as a draft entry; I believe it is a full entry in OED3 but I have no access to it so I can't check. I can get temporary access if needed to check it, but would appreciate it if someone else could look as it would mean calling in a favour. Also, just to clarify, the letter from Fruma Klass was an email to me in about 2002 or so, in my role as volunteer working on the OED SF citations project. She gives the 1951 date in her email, on Phil Klass's authority. I forwarded the email to Jesse Sheidlower and they decided to treat it as a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take another look at the entry; I'll consolidate the footnotes in a day or so. This is not an argument against promotion; all of these trust Sheidlower's editorial judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Current ref 9 (Science Fiction Citations…) lacks a publisher. Note that it will NOT load for me on a Mac with safari nor with firefox on a PC nor with IE on a PC, so I can't judge the reliability, but I'm not being that impressed so far.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is the parent page for that link; it works, and so do the links on either side of it. I found the page that should be used here in the Wayback Machine: here. I'd prefer not to use that if I can avoid it as the live link will update with any further citations to the OED. I've emailed Jesse Sheidlower, who runs that site, to ask what the issue is. If it's not fixed shortly I'll switch to the Wayback Machine version. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loads for me. It does verify the sentence after which it is placed. Wackywace converse | contribs 17:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does load now; Jesse has fixed part of the problem but the 1958 citation is not showing up; he's looking at that too. The information needed is still covered, though; it's in the text above the list of citations. I have just realized that the appearance of my own name in that page might raise a question so I've added a P.S. above to address it. Mike Christie (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1/2c: Not a fan of contractions in titles. "Tuck, Encyclopedia of SF, p. 604." is miscited. Tuck is infact The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Volume 3. Did you consult individual articles in the two encyclopedia consulted or the entire work. If individual entries were they individually authored, or were they authored by the editors in chief? Why not cite the titles of the sole articles consulted, at least in short citations? What makes the two tertiary sources (Tuck, Donald H. (1982); Clute, John; Peter Nicholls (1993).) high quality reliable sources? Tymn & Ashley, Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines seems to contain individually authored articles with individual titles; what is the author and article at p. 391. (Tymn & Ashley, Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines, p. 391.). "Magazine:Venture Science Fiction – ISFDB". Al von Ruff. appears to be miscited? Surely: Al von Ruff, "Magazine:Venture Science Fiction Magazine" in ISFDB.? ISFDB is a wiki (faq here). What makes the ISFDB a high quality reliable source, or a reliable source at all? (I apologise if these questions have previously been visited at FAC). SF Citations appears to be improperly cited (it has an editor in chief; a record is cited from a larger tertiary work). Probably do to back up SF Citations with the OED3 citation if relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Tuck encyclopedia is written entirely by Tuck; I added the article title to the citation. The Nicholls/Clute has multiple contributors and I've credited them and the articles now. I've also cited the individual authors in the Tymn/Ashley.
    • The Nicholls/Clute is the most reliable reference work in the field and has a very high reputation. I can probably find support for that if you like but it is widely known in sf and is not controversial at all. Similarly, Tuck has a high reputation; the Nicholls/Clute describes his work as one of the foundation stones of sf bibliography.
    • The ISFDB is an interesting case. It is only partly a wiki; though the main site also can be edited by the public (though with heavy restrictions). Still, I don't think it meets the definition of a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is cited for the convenience of the reader only -- that's why the citation reads as it does. There is no information in the article that is only sourced from the ISFDB; that citation also refers to the individual issues, to verify such things as the price, page count and so forth. This could be removed but it has survived similar discussions at previous FACs: see Amazing Stories and Galaxy Science Fiction for a couple of FAs that have an analogous citation. I think it's sufficiently useful to the reader to leave in. As for citing it, Al von Ruff is the publisher; he's not the author of the material cited, which can't really be cited to an individual contributor. I am open to changing the format but the current format seems to cover the situation as I see it.
    • Not quite clear on the problem with SF Citations -- I suppose you could think of Jesse as the editor in chief, but day to day editing work was originally done entirely by me, and is now done by two other volunteers in addition -- Jeff Prucher and Malcolm Farmer. Jesse might be regarded as the publisher perhaps? I will add the OED3 cite as it definitely covers the information; since it's behind a paywall I will leave the other cite up too. Mike Christie (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very happy with these responses. The issue with SF Citations is that it is cited like a website instead of like an entry in an edited compendium. Just because an edited compendium is published electronically doesn't make it any less of an edited compendium. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, but I'm not quite sure what ought to be done. Could I ask you to correct it for me, or show me what it is that needs to be done? Similarly I have a short form citation for the OED that doesn't quite look right to me; I don't think I've cited a website in short form citations before -- is there a better format for that? Mike Christie (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hope that helps. cite web has a parameter |work= so individual pages occupy the |title= position, and the containing site occupies the |work= position, for example |title=FAC/Venture Science Fiction/archive1 |work=en.wikipedia.org. The OED we cited had a date for the individual article, so I noted it. Also fixed the ISFDB cite for title work and to indicate the publisher is a publisher. Attributed the SFCites work to its editorial team at the same time using the author order listed on the about page. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you! Mike Christie (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: It will be better if a brief summary of the "relative merits of the artwork" (from the article) are given on the pages of File:VentureJul1958.jpg and File:VentureAug1970.jpg; this helps establish the rationales (if the article is re-written and those text removed, ...). Regardless, the self-created chart and fair use of the images seem reasonably in line with policies/guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the image review. Mike Christie (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As requested, I made some comments on the fair use images used in the article some weeks ago. When I read it then I thought it was of FA quality, and rereading it now I find it meets all the FAC criteria. My only quibble is whether the Australian edition should be mentioned in the lead. Since the Australian edition is in the section header, it seems odd not to also mention it in the lead. I think using the double cite for Sturgeon's Law is the way to go. Nicely done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could mention the Australian edition in the lead if you think it's worth it; the reason I didn't is that it's just a reprint edition and has no independent interest. The British edition only contains reprints, but is not at all a copy of the American edition, so it seemed worth mentioning. The reason I mention the Australian edition in the section header is that without it the header would have seemed inaccurate: I do need to mention the Australian edition somewhere, and since it's an exact copy of the UK edition that seemed like that place. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thought would be to very briefly mention the Australian edition in the lead by adding a bit to the current sentence on the British edition, so perhaps something like: A British edition appeared for 28 issues between 1963 and 1965; it reprinted material from The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction as well as from the US edition of Venture[, and was itself exactly reprinted in an Australian edition]. On my monitor at least, the Australian edition is visible both in the Table of Contents and in the header while reading the lead, which is my main reason for also including it in the lead. Ultimately it is your call, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it some more, I think you're right. I added a sentence to the lead about it. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given the recent emphasis on checking for intellectual property issues, I checked the three internet sources cited in the article. They back up what they are used as references for, and the material in the article is not plagiarized or a close paraphrase of the sources that I could see. Most of the article is sourced to references which are offline and I do not have access to. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with only a few nitpicky comments (Note: this review is based on content only; haven't done a source check or any other checks) :

  • Very nitpicky: for some reason "succumbed to poor sales" makes it sound like a disease, which may not be far from the truth - I can't think of a better word, but maybe someone else can.
  • Check that F&SF is consistently italicized - currently not in the "Second US run" section"
  • Also in the "Second US run", perhaps the info re: Tanner and art should be consolidated
  • Nice pulp magazine article with nice images. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I see what you mean about "succumbed", but poor sales really is a fatal disease for a magazine. I rather like the metaphor; if you can think of a better way to put it then we can change it, but I think it's OK. I made the other two changes you suggest, plus a tweak or two I noticed in the "Second US run" section; let me know if that looks better now. Mike Christie (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine now. That was all that I noticed - it was a very interesting read. I can live with "succumbed" - as you say, poor sales do kill a magazine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just finished a copyedit, which didn't take long. Looks in fine shape—no queries on substance per se. One on content of lede:

  • The fact that the magazine published McIntyre's first story during its second run is noted in the lede. That seems justified. Might it not similarly be worth noting that during the magazine's first run, it was where Sturgeon's Law was first published? That seems at least as significant in the history of sf, and strikes me as the signal moment of Venture's original version.—DCGeist (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. I added it to the second para of the lead. I thought about adding the definition of Sturgeon's Law there too, but I think it's not needed in the lead; it's linked, after all. Mike Christie (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Small query.

  • [Lede:] "The second US version was no more successful, with less attractive color art..."

Should that be "cover" art? If you do mean "color", then some explication of the point is needed in the main text (i.e., that interior art in Venture, as in all [?] sf digests, was black-and-white).—DCGeist (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo for "cover"; I've corrected it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Support: Good use of what sources exist. Solid all around.—DCGeist (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2010 (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/Venture_Science_Fiction/archive1&oldid=1138474939"