Former good article nomineeRay Bradbury was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 25, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 6, 2012.

the relativity of The Big Three in classic Science-Fiction.

edit

It was canonic knowledge to me as a youth that there were three central figures in classic Science-Fiction, and that these three were Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Only some days ago I have been challenged by articles in Wikipedia (in english, german and french) that claim The Big Three in SF were (and had always been) Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert A. Heinlein. Taking this for a revisionist approach, I quickly got into fair trouble when having to prove my point of view to some quite offensed wikipedians ... and was unable to. Anybody here with concrete arguments in favour of Bradbury? 2001:7E8:C29C:2400:99E8:1290:C28A:DD1B (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I never heard of Bradbury being among the Big Three of SF either. His unique writing often veered towards that gray area between science fiction and fantasy, so its hard to see him being identified as an exemplar of "classic science fiction". Saratoga Sam (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The WaPo (and others) use the formula "ABC" (Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke) as an alternative to the "Big Three." (Why do we need a "three" ... is this just marketing?) -- Jaireeodell (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply