Talk:Fantasy (1938 magazine)

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Mike Christie in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fantasy (1938 magazine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply


overview

edit

So there's not too much to talk about here. The article covers a narrow topic, does so fairly well and is referenced as well as one might hope, given the subject (see below for my largely vain attempts to find good resources outside of those listed in the article). I'd like to see it cover the impact (if there was one) of Fantasy on british sci-fi but there's only so much impact one could expect from a 3 issue run of a a magazine--a run which abutted against the second world war to boot.

If you have time and access to sources I'd like to see some of the sources I listed below incorporated into the article should they provide some novel information. However that's not a requirement and I think I can pass this article provided the style and content questions below are answered.

Howdy! Nice to talk to you. Thanks for picking this up. I'll go through your notes below and reply in more detail, but generally there's not much to say about the impact; pre-war British magazine sf died a-borning because of the war. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Oh, one last thing. Can you find the appropriate wikiprojects for this and add talk page banners/assessments? If there aren't any (or they'd be too broad or too inactive) then don't worry about it but it might be valuable. Protonk (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

images

edit
  • image looks great, NFC justification seems sound

style/layout

edit
  • Is there a reason aside from personal preference that we've split the footnotes and the references? Normally I see this where there are multiple references to distinct pages among a small set of references but here it's a 1:1 mapping.
    No particular reason -- I used this style on radiocarbon dating, which is the most recent major article I've worked on, and another editor with an academic background helped me make it consistent. Now I have the habit. I think I like it because the footnotes themselves are short, which seems simpler for the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • lede summarizes the article fairly well
  • Would this topic benefit from a see also section? Is there a navigation template for sf magazines?
    I built the navbox for pulps, which is in this article; one for sf magazines would be too big, I think. There's one for British sf magazines but it's not comprehensive so I tend not to use it, though I haven't removed it where it's been added (e.g. on Nebula Science Fiction). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

content

edit

sourcing

edit

Other sources:

  • There's Michael Ashley's The History of the Science Fiction Magazine: 1936-1945 (which I don't see available online). You've got two other books by him so it's possible the material has been covered there
    I have this; it's almost completely superseded by The Time Machines, which I've used instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Neil Barron's Anatomy of Wonder contains a chapter on science fiction between the wars. I don't know if this covers Fantasy (as the name is a confounded search term)
    Sorry, don't have this -- should probably get it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Passing mention in a letter to the editor for Science Fiction Studies 13(1) 1986 (pp. 105) about Nils Frome not being as bummed about a particular story in Fantasy as he was w/ most other contemporary Sci Fi. Not much but I've searched through their archives for 30 minutes and I need something, that journal is interminable.
    Nice! I have a JSTOR account and hadn't found anything useful; thanks for that. I put in Moskowitz's assessment of the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Eric Leif Davin in Partners in Wonder: Women and the Birth of Science Fiction, 1926-1965 (pp. 21-22) indicates (in passing only) that Fantasy ran in from 1946-1947 as well? Was it a different publication under an identical name?
    No, that was actually a different magazine that also ran for three issues. No article for that one yet but I'll get there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Brian Stableford's Scientific Romance in Britain, 1890-1950 (pp. 151, 371) may contain a broad survey of the british pulp market which might include Fantasy but I don't have access to it. He's bearish on the prospects of the british pulp market in the era.
    • Contra Stableford, Richard Mathews says that the British pulp market was fairly robust in Fantasy: The Liberation of Imagination (p. 30)
  • Also of use may be Ultimate Island: On the Nature of British Science Fiction and British Science Fiction: A Chronology, 1478-1990, both by Nicholas Ruddick. Though I have no idea if they cover Fantasy
Sorry, don't have any of the three above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Mike Christie: There's actually 4 above. :) The review of the latter two is here: JSTOR 4240255. If you're looking to expand on british SF might be worth finding in a library. Protonk (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I added a couple of relevant Wikiprojects; I've also ordered some of the books (the Davin, the Barron, and both Ruddicks) and will add details from them when they arrive, if there's anything to add. I'd been meaning to get at least the first two of those for a while. Thanks for the promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply