Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Argosy (magazine)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 December 2023 [1].

Argosy (magazine)

edit
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential magazines in American history. Argosy was the first pulp magazine and spawned hundreds of imitators and an entire industry that lasted almost sixty years. It was the first brick in the publishing empire built by Frank Munsey, an often-reviled publishing mogul of the early 20th century. It outlasted Munsey, who died in 1925, but the magazine eventually succumbed in 1978, though it has been revived several times since then.

The article has one unusual feature. In researching the history of its editors, I found that none of the secondary sources listed them correctly for a short period in 1942. I sent a correction to one of the sources, and they accepted it and have updated the relevant pages, which the article now cites. I don't think this is a COI in any way but thought I should mention it. It's an example of what we often tell new editors -- if you have original information, get it published and then we can include it in a Wikipedia article. This is the first time I've ever actually had to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

edit

Saw that the peer review closed without any comments. I'll try to find the time to review this, though I make no promises. Leaving this here for now at least. TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TompaDompa, I think this could do with some TLC if you have the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find the time in the next few days or so. TompaDompa (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • The article is rather light on links. It's of course a matter of preference, but I would probably include a fair number of additional links to things like serial (literature) and World War I.
    I've linked those two, and will keep an eye out for more possibilities as I respond to your other points, but if you see others you consider to be omissions please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WWI and WWII are classic MOS:OVERLINKage; everyone knows what they are, and no one will click on them from this article. Such links add to the WP:SEAOFBLUE, and diminish the value of links relevant to the article. (Not a significant matter relative to FA status, just something to consider.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can agree to disagree about that specific example, but it is indeed a balance between including too many links and not including enough. I generally lean in favour of including fairly many. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I would likely go for more WP:REDLINKS.
    I've added a couple. I assume you're thinking of some of the early stories, which might have commentary? I think some are likely to be too obscure to have standalone articles so I'm reluctant to start linking the titles, but if you feel confident that some are independently notable then go ahead, or let me know which ones you think deserve the links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Publication history
Contents and reception
Men's magazine era
  • "In 1942, in an attempt to revive the magazine's fortunes, the all-fiction format was abandoned and articles about the war" – I can figure out that this refers to World War II, as can likely most readers, but I think it should be made explicit.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argosy's citation from the Post Office listed stories considered to be obscene; the list included The G-String Murders, a serial by Rose Louise Hovick that began in May 1942, and "How Paris Apaches Terrorize Nazis in Girl Orgies" and "Sex Outrages by Jap Soldiers", articles in the July and August 1942 issues." – no feedback here, I just find it amusing that those titles sound like something someone would make up to poke fun at tabloid headlines.
    I agree -- I thought it was worth including by way of illustration. Incidentally, the link for Rose Louise Hovick goes to Gypsy Rose Lee, which many more readers will recognize. The credit in the magazine itself was to Hovick, but do you think it would be worth mentioning her stage name in this article because of the recognition factor? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll defer to your judgment here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; much appreciated. I've responded to some of the ones I could deal with quickly; will continue this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, all replied to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, I've dealt with the two additional comments you left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. The article looks good, but I am unfortunately not sufficiently confident in my own ability to discern whether an article on this topic is up to WP:Featured article standards or falls short of them to be comfortable endorsing this unequivocally. I have no particular misgivings about the article, I just don't feel qualified enough to assess its quality to such a high standard to give an unreserved appraisal. TompaDompa (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Frank_Munsey.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    The LoC link says it's part of the Bains collection, and the rights description link, here, says there are no known copyright restrictions but gives no more details. I had a look around to see if I could find the source but haven't been able to. Is the LoC description not definite enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I've added a photo of Gypsy Rose Lee, FYI, in case you see any issues with the licensing there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

edit

References

  • Reference numbers are from this version.
  • Ordinarily I would suggest linking the short cites to the bibliography (e.g., by using {{sfn}} cites). Though it's normally a matter of preference, here, given the prevalence of anonymous sources, I would strongly encourage doing so.
    I understand the benefits of sfn but dislike it as an editor. I may try switching to it as some point but for this article I'd rather see if I can get the cites in order without it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are archived versions of Galactic Central being linked to in the first instance? It looks like the site is still live.
    All the pages from that site that have numerals in the URL are subject to change every quarter as the site is reindexed to take into account new content. The URLs will never go dead, but they'll unpredictably change so that the citation information is no longer on that page. I've handled this by marking them as dead immediately and giving an archive link. I agree it's not a great solution but I don't know of a better way to deal with the issue. I'm open to suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense; that's a better solution than letting them get out of date. The only other thing I can think of would be to email the guy behind the website—I can't see why it would be in his interest for links to his website (whether from Wikipedia or anywhere else) to get dated every quarter. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He does have a method of permalinking, but the last time I tried to use it (a month or two ago) it was broken. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the cites to websites (there are many) appear to incorrectly give the access date as the source date.
    For Galactic Central there are no source dates that I can find -- I think the rule is to give the access date for that parameter in those cases? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would just be confusing, because you wouldn't know what the date actually meant. Looking at Help:Citation Style 1 § Dates, the rule is "When a source does not have a publication date, use |date=n.d. or |date=nd". (News to me too—I've just been leaving them blank.) {{cite web}} also gives the intel that "The date of a Web page, PDF, etc. with no visible date can sometimes be established by searching the page source or document code for a created or updated date". The second is certainly not required, but I would do the first, or at least remove the dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this one is still remaining. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, missed this. I'm removing the access dates now. The template documentation for cite web for the source date field says "Full date when the source was published; if unknown, use access-date instead; do not wikilink"; I always interpreted that as meaning "put in the access date", but perhaps it meant "ignore this parameter in favour of the access date". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernameunique: I think I've cleaned them all up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #12, #121, #123 — Suggesting using "name-list-style = amp" parameter
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #170 — What is this ("Anonymous (December 1942), p. 20") citing to? There's no anonymous work from December 1942 in the Sources, and the only December 1942 works there are a) have identified authors and b) don't include page 20. (This is another good example of why linked short cites would be better, by the way.)
    Fixed -- three separate errors on my part here: it was by Harriet Bradfield, not anonymous; it was 1943, not 1942; and I had not even added that source to the list of sources. Should be OK now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Also made a few minor edits while checking. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- I've responded to a couple of things tonight but may have to wait till tomorrow or Tuesday to finish. Thanks for the helpful copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, I think I've now responded to all points -- sorry about the delay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, sorry for letting this slip. I saw one lingering retrieval date given as source date (#19), which I trust you'll clean up—you might want to double check, too, just in case there's another one or two. But it looks good overall, and I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that one and looked through again but couldn't find others. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Argosy
The Argosy
Dewart, Popular Publications

Done to the start of Contents and reception; more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more to add. Just one comment in the Science fiction and fantasy section:

  • "Argosy did print" and "Barsoom series had begun", had appeared': any reason why not "Argosy printed" and "Barsoom series began"?
    I changed the first one. For the second, the series began in All-Story, which is in the past at the point the article is talking about it, so I think the past perfect is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Munsey kept to the weekly schedule without missing an issue". This seems to be saying the same thing twice.
    The key point is that he didn't miss an issue, but I think "Munsey managed to avoid missing an issue" wouldn't read as naturally. I've made it "Munsey managed to keep to the weekly schedule"; does that convey the point still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. If you want a little more emphasis, maybe 'Munsey managed to maintain the regular weekly schedule' or similar?
    Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 sample issues". I had to reread that to get the point. Maybe 'Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 free-sample issues' or 'Over five months the campaign gave away 11,500,000 sample issues'?
    I took the second option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Argosy" section: perhaps a date before the third sentence?
    Done, but I'm not sure that reads more smoothly -- what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am clearly missing something. The first date in that section is still in the third sentence.
    I misunderstood your comment, though in retrospect it's quite clear. For some reason I thought you wanted me to move the date in the third sentence up to the start of the third sentence. I've reverted that change and added the year to the first sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine briefly" → 'which was briefly retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine'?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1925 Munsey died." A little more detail would be nice, if only his age and the cause of death.
    Done. Britt doesn't say he died of appendicitis; it was probably complications of that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at least four issues between Fall 1977 and Summer 1978". I don't think you need upper-case initial letters when not referring to specific issues.
    Those are the issue dates so I reworded to make that more natural. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magazine has been revived three times since then." This came as a shock. I had to back track through the previous two paragraphs to realise that you had implied, without expressly stating, that the magazine had ceased publication.
    Reworded the earlier paragraph to make it clearer that it (temporarily) ceased publication.
    Mike, could you quote this for me, my wheels are clearly spinning. I have just reread the three paragraphs in question three times and it still seems to leap from "Argosy's circulation remained over a million until at least 1973" to "The magazine has been revived three times since then" giving me a real 'whaaa ...?' feeling.
    I just realized that "The magazine" is confusing, coming as it does after mentions of the spinoffs, so I've changed that to "Argosy". Perhaps that paragraph should be first in that small section? Here's the sequence of events. Popular ceased to publish the magazine in 1978. Four more issues appeared from Lifetime Wholesalers, dated August through November 1979. I have no information at all about those issues -- presumably Lifetime Wholesalers bought the title from Popular and quickly discovered it was an unprofitable venture. The magazine ceased publication then until the first of the revivals, in 1989. The spinoffs are not issues of Argosy; they're covered here as that's how the secondary sources discuss them. Do the edits I just made help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed. How would you feel about "The last issue was dated November 1979." → 'The last issue was dated November 1979, after which regular publication ceased.'?
    Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bittner's comments in 1928 asked for "any good clean story with sound plot, rapid-fire action and strong masculine appeal will be considered" ". The grammar seems out here.
    Fixed by trimming the quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- all responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am down to the start of "Other genres" and will try to finish the review later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argosy briefly lost its permit as a result, but did not miss any issues." This seems to beg a question. Having lost its permit, how was it reinstated before an issue was missed?
    The sources don't say. The main source for this is Barbas, linked in the article; she goes into great detail on the case affecting Esquire, which (she argues) was a free speech landmark. From this page it's apparent Esquire didn't miss an issue either, so presumably either the magazines agreed to clean themselves up until the appeals were over or else the removal of the permits was stayed pending the appeal results, but Barbas gives no details for Argosy and I don't see those details for Esquire either (though I might have missed them). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might be inclined to add 'the reasons for this are unclear' or similar, but that is very much optional.
I'm always hesitant to add notes like that, since I don't want to imply in Wikipedia's voice that "nobody knows the answer". Perhaps the answer is in some source I haven't seen yet. I would have thought the trade journals of the day would have covered it, but I haven't found anything like that yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. A classic. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 3 December 2023 (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/Argosy_(magazine)/archive1&oldid=1188679468"