Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Raymond science fiction magazines/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2022 [1].

John Raymond science fiction magazines

edit
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about four science fiction magazines published in the early 1950s. The publisher, John Raymond, had no interest in sf, but was lucky enough to hire Lester del Rey, who acquired good material and made the magazines profitable. Raymond was difficult to work with and uninterested in improving the magazines, and del Rey soon left. The magazines lasted only a few months longer, which is a pity as they are better regarded than many of the other 1950s magazines that lasted for many more issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments (full review later)

edit

Comments by Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "When a second distributor approached Raymond, again suggesting a science fiction magazine, Science Fiction Adventures was launched, again with del Rey as editor, this time under an alias." When did this happen? Later in 1952?
  • Per the above bullet point: I'm not thrilled with this phrasing because of the number of commas. Perhaps, "A second distributor approached Raymond later in the year suggesting another science fiction magazine, and Science Fiction Adventures launched with del Rey again as editor, this time under an alias."
    I decided to keep the "When" at the start, as it simplifies the syntax in the middle, but I went with most of your suggested wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but agreed, and became the editor of Space Science Fiction," -> but agrees to become the editor of Space Science Fiction" to remove a comma
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The result was Science Fiction Adventures, which appeared in November that year, and Raymond soon decided to expand further, launching Fantasy Magazine in March 1953, and Rocket Stories, also aimed at a juvenile readership, the following month." Suggest splitting this sentence into two, and removing some extra words, as so: "The result was Science Fiction Adventures, which appeared in November that year. Raymond decided to expand further, launching Fantasy Magazine in March 1953 and Rocket Stories, also aimed at a juvenile readership, the following month."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though in the event Fantasy Magazine became the outlet for the fantasy stories del Rey acquired." -> "although Fantasy Magazine became the outlet for the fantasy stories del Rey acquired." or something similar
    I'd like to keep "in the event" or some similar wording -- it implies that it was later events that changed the original plan, rather than simply saying it did not happen that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was cut short after only one instalment when the magazine ceased publication." suggest deleting only, as the reader already knows that this is a limited amount so the word is unnecessary
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the opinion of science fiction historians Ted Krulik and Bruce Tinkel the magazine improved over its first year;" comma after Tinkel
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashley considers that it although it took some time for the effects of Knight's reviews to appear," -> "Ashley stated that although it took some time for the effects of Knight's reviews to appear,"
    I'd rather not use "state"; I'd prefer to use a verb of opinionation -- considers, argues, suggests, asserts, etc. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Ashley's opinion the magazine quickly developed into one of the stronger sf magazines of the day," comma after opinion
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Science fiction historian E. F. Casebeer considers that the magazine" change consider to stated, as I think that more accurately describes what Casebeer is doing here.
    As above I'd like to argue the reverse -- he certainly is stating this, as you say, but isn't it true that any quote can be presented with "state"? I think that's because "state" doesn't colour the quotation at all; it just presents it. I think it's worth using verbs that indicate we are presenting a critic's opinion. I tend to avoid "state" anyway, because if something is worth quoting it's often because it's an opinion rather than a neutral statement of fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first issue of Fantasy Magazine contained a Conan story, by Robert E. Howard," Delete the comma after story
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence in "Bibliographic details" is very long, even with the semi-colons. Suggest splitting it up.
    Yes, that was long and ugly. Now cut in half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720: Thanks for the review! Replies above; I've made nearly all the changes, and argued for keeping a couple of words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a comment about "in the event" above. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have just realised that I forgot to follow-up on this discussion. Sorry about that! All of my comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

edit
  • As a US subject the article is presumably written in US English, so the second word of the caption on the grid should be spelt "colors"
    Oops. Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rocket Stories, also aimed at a juvenile readership" - the "also" indicates that one of the previously-mentioned mags was also aimed at a juvenile audience but it isn't clear which one
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Del Rey persuaded Raymond to increase pay rates in order to improve circulation" but the body does not mention the "in order to improve circulation" element at all, or explain why paying the authors more would cause circulation to improve
    I think it's implied by the sentence in the body after the description of the proposals: "Del Rey calculated the increased circulation that would be needed for these investments to show a net profit". Do you think it needs to be more direct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem to say the same thing as the lead. The lead says "Del Rey persuaded Raymond to increase pay rates in order to improve circulation", meaning (to me at least) that Del Rey's argument was that if pay rates were increased, circulation would as a direct result go up. The text in the body says that Del Rey essentially said "we need to put up pay rates, and if we do so, we'll need to improve circulation by N% to be able to afford it", which is almost the exact opposite of what the lead says (IMO). Does that make sense....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. I went back to the source and the way it's put in the body is the way the source has it -- del Rey's goal was reinvestment, and he argued that it wouldn't take much increased circulation to earn that money back. The implication is that he also argued that it would increase circulation past that point, meaning that the investment would lead to increased circulation, but you're right that saying his primary goal was the increased circulation isn't really accurate. I've dropped the mention of circulation from the lead -- does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cover layout changed to mirror the inverted "L" format used by Galaxy" - I don't understand what this is saying, can you reword at all?
    Most sf magazines had cover art that covered the entire front cover. In 1950 Galaxy Science Fiction came up with a cover design that reduced the art to about 80% of the cover, with an inverted "L" shape taking up the top and left edges -- you can see an example at that article. Several other magazines copied this (e.g. see here). The source for this article doesn't talk about the fact that multiple other magazines copied it, it just mentions that it picked up the design -- the image of Rocket Stories in this article has that design, for example. I've tried to clarify the layout in the article without going into too much detail -- how does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review! Replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Piotrus

edit

Also, minor quibble 2: "John Raymond" is not linked (is he not notable)?

Not as far as I can see. I tried fairly hard to find out which men's magazines he published, but couldn't, and I can't find out anything else about him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MQ3: one reference is expanded in the footnotes, the others are abbreviated. Please standardize.

The expanded one is a website; the rest are books -- I think this is a fairly standard approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am not a nitpicker for the reference standards. It looks jarring to me, but if our MoS is OK with it (and I presume MOS experts are active at FAC), than I am not going to make trouble :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super MSQ4: please rm duplicate link to L. Sprague de Camp in the body.

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MSQ5: Please add disetabilishment category; based on the tables, 1954?

I didn't add this because it's not the same for all four magazines. Three were 1953, one was 1954. Would it be valid to add both, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the topic is magazines as a set, I'd think 1954 as the end data for the set would be ok. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also ping User:TompaDompa who may be interesting in providing feedback on this topic too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; and thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Drive-by comments by TompaDompa

edit

I was pinged by Piotrus above. A couple of things that immediately stood out to me:

  • Is there any particular reason to cite the 1993 edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for the "SF Magazines" entry and the current online edition for the "Science Fiction Adventures" entry?
    One reason I've kept it this way is that the 1993 edition was not authored by Mike Ashley. He has been added as an author to the online edition, since he's contributed updates to that version. Ashley is certainly the world's leading authority on sf magazines, but I want to avoid the articles I write relying solely on his name in the citations, so I like to use this version. It's not that big a deal and I can update to the online articel if you think that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction in the references that cite it (in the same way that authors that have Wikipedia articles are linked). I think this is best practices.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, Brian Stableford has an article that should be linked.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a great fan of abbreviating science fiction as "sf" (or "sci-fi", for that matter) outside of direct quotes. Unlike, say, the paper editions of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, we don't need to abbreviate the term to conserve space (WP:NOTPAPER).
    I do it mainly for variety; spelling out "science fiction" in full can get very tedious to read. If you read through the last two paragraphs of the "Science Fiction Adventures" section as if each instance of "sf" were spelled out, it sounds very repetitive. And of course when we quote sources with the abbreviation we have to explain it anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may give the article a more thorough look later. TompaDompa (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

czar

edit

Hiya, some comments on a read-through:

  • I might have missed it somewhere but how did Raymond do business—did he use the same company or who funded these magazines? What was the business structure, where and how was it published, etc.
    I don't think you missed anything. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to find out more about Raymond -- even just the names of the magazines he was publishing -- but have found nothing. I am in contact with Mike Ashley, who wrote most of the sources I use for these magazines, and could ask him, but even if he knows more that wouldn't be citable so I haven't yet done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And with a business name like "Space Publications", it isn't exactly easy to find more info on the company. czar 04:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any considerable Legacy of Raymond's magazines or Raymond as a whole that would be relevant here? It kind of drops off after just listing the individual magazines.
    No, not really. The 1950s was a boom time for genre magazines; scores of new titles were launched, and it's kind of surprising that Raymond's are now fairly well-regarded (due, certainly, to del Rey's abilities as an editor, rather than to Raymond). They would probably have been quite successful if he'd allowed them to continue, but a total of two dozen magazines in just over two years is a tiny fraction of what was being published and they had no lasting effect on the field, as far as I can tell. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear why "Bibliographic details" needs its own section: It repeats facts about del Rey being the editor and contains facts that could either belong in the general "Publication history" or the individual sections for background on each magazine; on structure it makes me wonder why this isn't organized as Background on Raymond's business and motivations, followed by a section about each magazine's contents and specific publication details and reception (akin to capsule articles), followed by commentary in a combined section on the impact of Raymond's magazines, if viewed as a whole (like the article does) rather than individual magazines.
    I'm open to restructuring, but I do have reasons for doing it this way. I've used this format for many magazine articles, and I like it because I think the publication history sections can tell the story of the business and the reception and legacy material naturally splits out into a "Contents" section. I use the "Bibliographic details" section to make sure all the infobox-ish details are captured -- price changes, page counts, sequence of editors (and their pseudonyms) and publishers, format changes (none for these four magazines), title changes, and foreign reprint editions. Some of this information naturally reappears elsewhere in the article, particularly in the publishing section, but keeping a separate bibliographic section means I can skip tedious details in the other sections where they would just impede the narrative. To your suggestion: these magazines (as far as the sources can shed light on it) were a sideline for Raymond, rather than a focus, so I can't really talk about "Raymond's business" overall. And I think separating the publication details for the magazines would entail a good deal of repetition -- the hiring of the editors, for example. Then I think the reverse is true for the contents section -- you're proposing a section on the overall impact of the magazines, but they weren't a unified entity in their impact. Whatever impact is recorded in the sources is about the individual stories. I certainly could combine that narrative, but since I think the reader still wants to know which stories appeared in which magazine, that would again lead to repetition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the combined Publication history being a good background of the business (by any other name), but I'm still struggling to discern the difference between the "Bibliographic detail" contents and the other sections. If the most important content was merged into the existing sections, I wonder whether any of the other leftover detail would even be worth mentioning at all? If it impedes the narrative above, then it isn't necessarily better as its own medley section, right? Typically we don't include page counts in prose—only if it's noteworthy. It's sometimes in an infobox and otherwise omitted. czar 00:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Page count and price can be very important in the economics of these magazines, and they get mentioned in the body of the article when the sources go into those details; as a reader of works about magazine history, I am disappointed by a nonfiction source that omits that information, so when it's not mentioned in the body I think it needs to be included in some other way. The main sources I use generally do provide the same bibliographic summary at the end -- the Tymn/Ashley encyclopedia does, and Ashley's histories provide some of the information in appendices. There is often information that fits most naturally in a section like this -- see Weird Tales for example, where the bibliographic details section covers anthology series, foreign editions, variant covers, and collectability. I think it's also valuable to have consistency of presentation, for the same reason MoS requires consistency -- readers get familiar with it and are more comfortable navigating a consistent presentation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Listing it in an appendix, similar to how music album articles list tracks and production info at the bottom of their articles, is a workable idea. It is a bit awkward as prose in the present case.
    Sidenote but re: Weird Tales, I'm pretty surprised that some of that text made it into a FA! The fluctuating price per issue could easily be handled as a graph/table, if it needed to be covered at all. I think that's the main difference between WP being a general encyclopedia and a specialty encyclopedia—we still leave some details out for the sake of the general reader, who would only need to know that the price fluctuated between X and Y, not the fully enumerated value of every volume. It seems unlikely that this type of prose fact-listing would become a standard for magazine articles when we avoid it in other venues.
    czar 04:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply below to the note about del Rey's bibliography, which might address this too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strauss is missing an identifier
    Added OCLC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notation in the table should be explained for a general reader—is it volume slash issue?
    Yes; should have noticed that was missing. Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above that "sf" as an abbreviation comes across as strange. In academic reference works about the subject, I see the value of the abbreviation (though perhaps better as "SF" in uppercase, per most abbreviations), but since Wikipedia is for a general audience, it really should be written out for the eight times it's used. In the event that it's used in sentences alongside "Space Science Fiction" and "Science Fiction Adventures" and it's really important to not say "science fiction" several times in a sentence then yes, I could see abbreviating as "SF" in uppercase if introduced in advance, but I think the better suggestion there would be to recast the sentence to refer to "the genre" or use another term or separate the sentence's idea to make the repetition unnecessary. It's currently really easy to get lost in the sentences that mention two similar publication names when I, as a reader, do not yet have an image in my mind of what exactly that publication name is or represents.
    I'd prefer to change it to "SF" than get rid of it -- I think a reader quickly detects strained variations, and there's no harm in gently introducing one or two terms of art in an article. I use the lower case form partly because the most prestigious reference, the SF Encyclopedia, does so; see here for a random article that uses it. The main science fiction magazine expert, Mike Ashley, also uses "sf" in his books. These aren't academic works. "SF" is certainly frequently used in the field, so if you really think it's necessary I can change to that, but for full disclosure I've used "sf" in quite a few other articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more thing would be an issue if we eliminate the abbreviation completely: there are two quotes in article that abbreviate "science fiction"; one to "SF" and one to "sf". If we keep those quotes the article still has to introduce the abbreviation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the latter case, I believe we would just replace it with "[science fiction]" like any other mid-quote change in the original text. I would consider Ashley's books to be academic monographs and the SF Encyclopedia to be a specialty book. It's not something a general reader would expect. Abbreviating to "SF" sparingly when recasting is insufficient sounds like the best compromise between all needs. czar 01:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it to "SF" throughout, and used "[science fiction]" for the in-quote "sf". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't del Rey edit all of the magazines? Why is he only called out as the editor of the first two in the lede?
    He did. I hadn't realized the lead wording didn't make that clear; now rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

czar 19:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've made some changes in response to some points and have replied above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When del Rey became an editor, was it after he gave Raymond advice or because he submitted the story "Pursuit"? czar 00:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent find; thank you! I'll add something based on that and post again here when I'm done. I'll be slightly cautious about it, though, because Moskowitz's work has been criticized for inaccuracy. Ashley's account comes partly from correspondence with del Rey (he publishes an excerpt from del Rey's letter in his 1976 book) and since Ashley doesn't tell the story that way I think I need to be cautious. I've also emailed Mike Ashley in case he can back up Moskowitz's account, and since I'm emailing him anyway I've asked if he knows anything more about Raymond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Czar, Mike responded almost immediately with a copy of del Rey's letter to him in 1975. Of course that's not a source we can use but here's what he says: "I came in contact with John Raymond first when my agent called to tell me there was a new sf magazine in the works and that they desperately needed novelettes. He suggested I do some outlines and take them over to Raymond--who didn't seem to know what he wanted. (He was publishing a photo "art" magazine--girlies--and the idea of doing sf had come from the distributor, who then had no such magazines. I went up to the office and found a huge stack of manuscripts from agents, with no one knowing what to do, though an Asimov and one other story had been bought. Raymond vaguely discussed one outline--that for "Pursuit"--and told me to write it and he'd buy it. Then he tried to learn from me what he should know about sf." He goes on to give more details, but that's the part that overlaps with what Moskowitz says. I think I'd be inclined to leave out Moskowitz's account; it's not accurate, but I can't cite the letter from del Rey to correct it. Any thoughts? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the source doesn't specify who summoned whom and for what, might be best to just leave that out and say that del Rey gave him early counsel and was then chosen as the editor. czar 04:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but I think the current wording is in line with that source (which Ashley wrote based on the letter from del Rey) -- do you see wording that needs to be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another observation: In the sources I'm reading, it seems like these magazines are much more often associated or based around the relationship with del Rey than with Raymond. What is the thought behind scoping the article this way rather than as the works of del Rey? czar 01:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These were originally four stubs, one for each of the four magazines. I began working on expanding them, but found immediately that it would be ridiculously repetitious to do so, so I decided the sensible thing was to merge them. Ashley treats them in his prose histories all together in a single run of pages. I don't think it would make as much sense to make the articles "Lester del Rey science fiction magazines" -- for one thing, he was not the only editor of these magazines; for another, he also edited two issues of Worlds of Fantasy in the 1960s. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking more Lester del Rey bibliography, covering the magazines he edited (since these four are best associated with him) as well as other works. When scoped this way, it would avoid some of the list-as-prose issues discussed above since the descriptive bibliographic detail could just be listed (as a list) with room for written analysis alongside. Then it becomes a matter of what level of detail is undue weight to warrant a summary style split from such a bibliography. Definitely agreed that it made sense to combine the four stubs. czar 05:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see -- you're suggesting that a list format article such as a bibliography for del Rey would be a natural repository for that kind of detailed data, which would allow less details in articles such as this? I can agree with that. In articles I've written more recently I've gone with descriptions that give the basics without a tedious listing of details -- e.g. "the page count varied between 128 and 144 pages for most of its run" rather than listing the back and forth page count changes for every issue. For this article I think it's harmless to give the format, page count, and price, since that's just twenty words. The British editions aren't listed in the publication section and I think should stay. I've moved the table down and taken out the text in the bibliographic section giving the editorial succession, since that's clear in the table. I don't know how generally applicable that approach will be, though, since I can't use only colour to convey information. Here it's OK as the succession is given unambiguously in the table caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Czar, forgot to ping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar, can you let us know how things are looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No active objections from me—just suggestions czar 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I can see nothing to fault formatting- or reliability-wise -- looks GTG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

edit

I didn't think I'd have time to do a full review but can now recuse coord duties to do so... It's always difficult to find serious fault with Mike's SF mag articles, and any heavy lifting in this case appears to have already taken place. Lightly copyedited as usual so happy with prose, structure and comprehensiveness up to usual standards, will take Buidhe's image review as read, and obviously I stand by the source review above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, and I appreciate the copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 9 October 2022 (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/John_Raymond_science_fiction_magazines/archive1&oldid=1115130490"