Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weird Tales/archive1
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2016 [1].
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weird Tales was the first magazine to focus on horror, fantasy, and science fiction; it's three years older than Amazing Stories, the first pure sf magazine. This is the longest article I've ever nominated at FAC, but I think the length is justified -- it's one of the most influential genre magazines ever published; and it has an inordinately complicated publishing history as well. I'd like to thank Bruce1ee and Josh Milburn, whose reviews at PR significantly improved the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (but I am watching the page for any issues I may have missed). I had my say at peer review, and found the article incredibly engaging, despite its somewhat niche subject matter. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Josh! Much appreciated, as was the PR. I keep finding little niggles myself and fixing them, so no doubt others will find more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the content – I haven't checked the sources, and many of them are offline. As I said in the peer review, it's an interesting article illustrating Weird Tales' turbulent history. It still is quite long, but I'm happy with it. —Bruce1eetalk 07:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And thanks again for the PR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN2: which Weinberg 1985?
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how you treat website names - sometimes they're italicized, sometimes capitalized, sometimes "www" is included, but none of that is consistent
- I think these are fixed. I've been using what the automatic generator produces, and I went back and reran it on the inconsistent ones. The sf-encyclopedia.com cites really don't have a "www" in the URL; I think all the others now include the www. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FN12, 17: date?
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a consistent date format
- I think I fixed them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing full bibliographic details for Joshi 2001, Clareson 1985
- Joshi was 2004; fixed. Clareson added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FN48 needs editing for redundancy, and consistency with FN50
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Jaffery 1984 or 1985?
- 1985; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FN122 is incomplete
- Removed; the other citation there covers everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FN123 and 124 should be consistent
- Now a single cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weinberg 1985b is the only one abbreviating Connecticut
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Further reading should use the same formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I cut the section; one of the books turned out to be low quality and I think all the information in the others is in the article or links. Thanks for the review, Nikki; I think everything is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - looking now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, nothing prose-wise stands out that needs fixing. Looks comprehensive so support, an engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Will this stay open? I just found this nomination and maybe I can add my 2 cents shortly. Hekerui (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hekerui, it will probably be open for a bit longer at least since there's been no image review yet. Please do add any comments you have -- thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mike, my cold prevents me from doing this properly, I'm sorry. Hekerui (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hekerui, it will probably be open for a bit longer at least since there's been no image review yet. Please do add any comments you have -- thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
[edit]I shall perform an image review later today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, shame on me for the delay:
- File:Weird Tales March 1942.jpg: Free image. Putting the cover of a magazine at the top of the article for that magazine seems pertinent to me. I see a copyright registration that apparently refers to this magazine as well as some entries referring to this magazine on the pages linked here. This is a very complex aspect of copyright; I sort of want a second opinion on the status of this image.
- The first link is to a listing of the original copyright; it was definitely copyrighted, but it wasn't renewed. The second link shows (as far as I can tell) individual items in the magazine having copyright renewed, but not the cover. Some of the magazines were renewed and some were not -- there's a list on the article talk page I made when I searched all the renewal books. I think that means this one is OK. You ask in several places below what was done to verify the copyright tags; in each case I relied on the 28-year copyright renewals, so I won't reply below to every separate question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Weird Tales May 1934.jpg: Free image on Commons. I am not sure why the image is being listed in that section, the only thing it has in common with the section is the time described. Seems like the copyright renewal, if it existed, is not in an online accessible place.
- Yes, the time matches -- I wanted to illustrate the look of the magazine at that time. Rather than respond individually below to your questions about particular significance of image choice in certain cases, let me just say that the free images that don't illustrate specific discussions were chosen to illustrate the time period. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Weird Tales March 1923.jpg: Free image on Commons. Seems like it is pertinent to show the first cover of the work when the story is explicitly discussed in the section.
- File:Weird Tales September 1937.jpg: Free image on Commons. There is a section farther down which explicitly discusses the nudity that this author employed, so it seems pertinent.
- File:Weird Tales December 1936.jpg: Free image on Commons. Is there some special significance to this image that it has been included?
- File:Virgil Finlay Weird Tales October 1938 Horns of Elfland.png: Free image on Commons. The author of this image is specifically discussed in this section, as is the image, so it seems pertinent. What kind of research was done to validate this copyright tag?
- File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg437 Homocidal Diary.png: Free image on Commons, derived from another file. It's a bit unclear why this cover is in the article. What was done to verify the copyright tag?
- File:Weird Tales January 1938.jpg: Free image on Commons. There is discussion in the section about content involving nudity, so it seems pertinent there.
- File:Weird Tales November 1941.jpg: Free image on Commons. Does this cover illustrate something specific about that era in the magazine's history?
- File:Weird Tales May 1952.jpg: Free image on Commons. Does this cover illustrate something specific about that era in the magazine's history?
- Gallery in the Legacy section: Free images on Commons. Mayhaps this gallery should be supplemented with some discussion on what it illustrates. How were the copyright tags there verified?
- The artists are all mentioned in the discussion of interior art, so I thought this would be a useful gallery. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg419 Shunned House.png: Free image on Commons derived from other file. Seems a bit decorative there. What was done to verify the copyright status?
- It's decorative there, but there was white space and I thought an interior illustration would be a nice way to fill it. I picked this particular illustration because Weinberg quotes a Lovecraft collector who regards the illustration as the finest magazine illustration for any of Lovecraft's stories, but I don't think the collector is a notable individual so I didn't mention that in the caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- File:US and Canadian Weird Tales November 1935 Brundage.jpg: Free image on Commons. It shows differences between US and Canadian editions, in a section about that topic so it seems pertinent. What was done to verify the copyright status?
- File:Weird Tales March 1942.jpg: Free image. Putting the cover of a magazine at the top of the article for that magazine seems pertinent to me. I see a copyright registration that apparently refers to this magazine as well as some entries referring to this magazine on the pages linked here. This is a very complex aspect of copyright; I sort of want a second opinion on the status of this image.
- In summa, (tracking down) copyright registration is a black spot for me so I can't definitively comment on the copyright status of these images. I wonder, did any of these issues have a copyright notice? Non-copyright wise these images need ALT text for accessibility reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add the ALT text and note here when I've done it. Thanks very much for doing the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jo-Jo Eumerus: ALT text now added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jo-Jo Eumerus: pinging; not sure if you saw this first time around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone will have to write up a page on Commons on how to verify renewals and the like, I still haven't worked out that yet. Otherwise the explanations on why you used the images seems good to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- GermanJoe: would you mind taking a look? I know you've got some background in these renewals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Christie, Jo-Jo Eumerus, as my response got rather lengthy and is mostly general advice about image renewals outside the scope of this specific FAC, I have posted it at Mike Christie's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, GermanJoe. Jo-Jo Eumerus, what GermanJoe outlines is the procedure I followed. I actually checked every year up to 1954, so I'm fairly sure all the images are fine. Is there anything else you need to complete this image review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Christie, Jo-Jo Eumerus, as my response got rather lengthy and is mostly general advice about image renewals outside the scope of this specific FAC, I have posted it at Mike Christie's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- GermanJoe: would you mind taking a look? I know you've got some background in these renewals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone will have to write up a page on Commons on how to verify renewals and the like, I still haven't worked out that yet. Otherwise the explanations on why you used the images seems good to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jo-Jo Eumerus: pinging; not sure if you saw this first time around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jo-Jo Eumerus: ALT text now added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add the ALT text and note here when I've done it. Thanks very much for doing the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only a check for copyright renewals on all the images, but that will have to wait as I have other projects today. Someone else can perform the renewal check, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image check for copyright renewals - all OK (GermanJoe)
[edit]- File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg419 Shunned House.png - OK. A few existing contribution renewals mentioning "Weird Tales" all refer to different works.
- File:Virgil Finlay Weird Tales October 1938 Horns of Elfland.png - OK. No "Weird Tales" renewals in 1965 or 1966. The artist Virgil Finlay is mentioned once in a contribution renewal in 1966, but for a different work (de Camp book). A faithful re-publication in 1977 would not create a new copyright claim (afaik) - still Public Domain.
- File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg437 Homocidal Diary.png - OK. Only one contribution renewal regarding Virgil Finlay in 1964, but for a different work.
- File:US and Canadian Weird Tales November 1935 Brundage.jpg - OK.
I added a short notice to these images to indicate the renewal check. Considering the lack of "Weird Tales" renewals for periodicals, I'll AGF on the other images with already noted renewal checks by experienced uploaders - it seems clear that renewals for the magazine itself were not done in the given period. GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2016 (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) 16:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.