Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Science-Fiction Plus/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2016 [1].

Science-Fiction Plus

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last attempt by Hugo Gernsback, the creator of the first science fiction magazine, to compete in the field. Science-Fiction Plus was an anachronism; the field had matured since Gernsback's heyday in the 1920s and 30s. It failed quickly, and Gernsback never returned to the fray. There are only seven issues of the magazine, so the sources are a little thin, but the article covers everything I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moisejp

Publication history:

"but he did not return to the field for nearly seventeen years, when Science-Fiction Plus appeared": suggest to specify "return to the sf field" for extra clarity.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and in theory should have given Gernsback a marketing edge": probably better to mention in the text the writer whose opinion this is.
I think this doesn't need attribution -- it's not controversial (i.e. it's not a matter of opinion) in the world of magazines that slick format is a marketing advantage, so I think if I attributed it inline it would give readers the wrong impression. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if you said "So-and-so notes that in theory this should have given Gernsback a marketing edge"? "notes" sounds closer to a statement of fact than a verb like "argues" but it still takes some edge off the "should have"—which jumps out at the reader as sounding like an opinion—even if, as you maintain, it's not an opinion. Not all readers (myself included) will have a background in the world of magazines to that know that this isn't a controversial statement. I just think if you can gently attribute it somebody with a verb like "notes", you could have the best of both worlds. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I've gone ahead and attributed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and if the circulation of the new magazine had been comparable to that of his other titles it would have been profitable despite the more expensive slick paper": here too.
I also don't feel this needs attribution; I don't think this is opinion. Slick paper was definitely more expensive; what's really being cited here is that the circulation Gernsback hoped for would have been enough to cover the extra cost of the paper, and that seems like a factual statement to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. If it was me, I might consider here too trying to reword it somehow to make it all the more clearly not sound like an opinion. But I think some of the other instances need it more than here.
I've left this one alone for now but I'll have a think about rewording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents and reception:

"it evolved away from his focus on facts and education, and became more mature": I'm not sure what "mature" implies here; also may be better to specify the writer whose opinion this is.
I cut "and became more mature"; I think it would be a digression to explain this and the important point is that sf was no longer focused on education. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The editor, Sam Moskowitz, also had a long history in the field, having helped organize the First World Science Fiction Convention in 1939, and he too had strong views about what constituted good science fiction, though his views did not always coincide with those of his publisher": quite a long sentence, with lots of clauses. Possibly consider breaking it up into two sentences?
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Moskowitz was the one in charge of obtaining stories, and he succeeded in acquiring work by many of the best-known names in sf, including Clifford Simak, Murray Leinster, Robert Bloch, and Philip José Farmer, but he also bought many stories by writers from the early years of the genre, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates." Also a little long, with three independent clauses. But if you feel it's a matter of preference, I won't insist.
This one I'd like to leave as is, because the "but" construction is what makes it long, and that's necessary for the "result" statement in the next sentence. I don't see an easy way to shorten it because of the lists of names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The result was a magazine that felt old-fashioned, despite its smart appearance: in Ashley's words, "for a magazine to be 'slick', it didn't just have to look slick, it had to feel it, but in the case of Science-Fiction Plus all that glittered clearly was not gold"." Consider specifying whose opinion it is that it "felt old-fashioned". The quote from Ashley does not precisely support this. Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence about this. The only two sources that spend time discussing the magazine in detail are Lawler and Ashley, and they both support this; Ashley calls the magazine "archaic" and Lawler describes it as "an anachronism". From my own knowledge of the field, I would say this is uncontroversial -- that is, nobody knowledgeable about the field would disagree. However, it is an opinion, even if it's one shared by all the sources. If I attribute the statement to Lawler and/or Ashley, I'm concerned that the reader will think it's not a unanimous opinion, which would be misleading. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would say it's safest to attribute it to them here. Again, maybe you can use a softer verb like "note". And even if you used a verb like "comment", which implies a little bit of opinion, I really don't think readers are going to think deeply, "Ah, 'comments'—so maybe lots of other people disagree with this opinion, and it actually wasn't old-fashioned." It's probably more likely that if you leave it as it is, sophisticated readers are liable to think, "This sounds like the opinion of this writer of this Wikipedia article. I wonder if it's true." Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point; I've suspected the writer's opinion at work in articles I've read. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and the copyedit; your commas look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I have at least one more comment:

"The artwork was of variable quality ... Paul's work had not improved over the years. Alex Schomburg, who was also a frequent contributor, did provide some high-quality covers." This is definitely opinion, and as much as or more than any other instances in the article, I would strongly urge you to attribute these inline. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your changes are very good. Here are some final mini-suggestions, and then I'm going to try to do a source check:

"The editor, Sam Moskowitz, had been a reader of the early pulp magazines, and published many writers who had been popular before World War II, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates. Combined with Gernsback's earnest editorials, this gave the magazine an anachronistic feel." It may be okay as it is, but for extra clarity you could spell out what "this" refers to: for example, "this use of early writers". But if you don't think it needs it, I'll leave this to your judgement.
Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Gernsback believed from the beginning of his involvement with science fiction in the 1920s that the stories should be instructive,[8] although it was not long before Amazing Stories had begun to print fantastical and unscientific fiction to attract readers." So this was after he lost control of it in 1929, not while he was still involved with it? Either way, it could be good to specify this.

I found the answer while doing a source check. On page 54 of The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950, it says "When Gernsback began serialization of 'The Moon Pool' in the May 1927 Amazing he faced the dilemma of introducing a story that was, by his definition, a fairy tale and not science fiction." In the Science-Fiction Plus Wikipedia article, the next sentence is "During Gernsback's long absence from the field, it evolved away from his focus on facts and education." But it might be good to clarify that this trend began while he was still publisher. (Or does "it" here refer to "the field", not to Amazing Stories?) Moisejp (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition to the fiction, Gernsback included departments such as..." I'm not sure if I would use the word "departments" here; "sections" sounds more natural to me. But if you are very comfortable with "departments" please disregard. Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to leave this as is; "department" is the most frequently used term for this in the sources, and I think it does the reader no harm to acquire this sort of vocabulary by the usage in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check ~~so far~~:

All of your online sources match what is in the article, and I couldn't find any instances of plagiarism. The information sourced to pages 50, 54, and 91 of The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950 (available on Google Books) also matches. In the next couple of days I'll check (or spot check) any other sources that happen to be available on Google Books. Moisejp (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now completed my source check of all sources that are either available online or on Google Books. (In the end, I didn't have access to any more than what I mentioned just above.) I am very happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and for fixing the mess I left behind; I changed it to "sf publishing" because he did continue to publish non-sf magazines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed but ile:Science_fiction_plus_195303_v1_n1.jpg gives an incorrect date. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by starship.paint

I hope to take a look at this within the next week! starship.paint ~ KO 12:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category says this is an American magazine but not the text.
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does reference 2 provide backing to the claim at the height of the pulp magazine era?
I switched this to the "SF Magazines" article in SFE3, which is explicit about this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I think doing a double cite is clearer, and have added that accordingly. starship.paint ~ KO 13:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the picture for Frank R. Paul's cover for the last issue (December 1953) of Science-Fiction Plus have a caption at bottom left saying "M___ by Michael Fischer"? Although later I noticed Paul's signature on the bottom right...
That's the title of the story being illustrated -- see here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning The Golden Age of Science Fiction seems irrelevant unless a clearer link is established to "unscientific fiction"?
The intended point is that science fiction moved on after Gernsback left the field in 1936 -- his idea of what an sf magazine should be was relevant in the 1920s, but by the time he launched SF Plus, the genre had transformed itself. He and Moskowitz were harking back to pre-Golden Age SF, which is why the commentators describe the magazine as old-fashioned. Is this not clear in that paragraph? I've moved the sentences about the five-pointed star to the end of the paragraph, as I think they interfered with the flow of the argument; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: Suggest after During Gernsback's long absence from sf publishing you also add from 1936 to [year] with the appropriate cite :) starship.paint ~ KO 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done, cited to Lawler. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Howard Menzel. James H. Schmitz and Eric Frank Russell also wrote stories published in this magazine - as seen from the pictures of the covers. Are they worth mentioning?
The main mention of the featured authors is in a sentence comparing the best of the new writers with the old guard. I checked Ashley; he does list Schmitz as one of the good new writers, so I added his name. Lawler lists most of the writers, but doesn't single out Russell in any way, and doesn't mention Menzel at all, so I think there's no particular reason to add them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures of the covers list Gernsback as the editor, not Moskowitz?
Moskowitz was managing editor, and actually bought the stories and assembled the issues; that's the usual description of an editor's job, regardless of the specific title. However, editors also usually write the editorials, so I've clarified who did what in the bibliographic details section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures of the covers list the tagline "Preview of the Future". Is this worth mentioning?
Neither Lawler nor Ashley mention it, so I don't think it's necessary. I did a Google Books search to see if there are other critical mentions, and only found passing references in books focused on other topics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I take it that the mention in "The Generation Starship in Science Fiction" is one of the passing ones? starship.paint ~ KO 13:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I think so -- it's just a mention of the magazine that includes the subtitle; it makes no critical comment about the subtitle. However, I took another look at Lawler and realized that in the publication history data he appends to his article he does mention the subtitle, so I've added it to the bibliographic details section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could we use single quotation marks for 'Spacebred Generations' / 'Strange Compulsion' / 'Nightmare Planet' / 'Freedom of the Race' to distinguish from quoted phrases in double quotation marks?
I would rather leave this as is -- use of double quotes for short story titles is standard formatting. See "The Open Boat", for example, which is an FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did the pictures appear in Häpna! only in 1954, or did you mean Häpna! was first published from 1954? It's not clear.
Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found a link to Ashley (2004). Also one for de Camp, one for Moskowitz. That's all for now. starship.paint ~ KO 09:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these. I didn't use the de Camp one as it points to the 1975 revised edition, rather than the 1953 edition I used, but I've added the other two. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't have time left today to take a look at all the new changes. Another day then! starship.paint ~ KO 13:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm done, all issues addressed! I am not an expert in this article's fields, but I believe it meets the criteria. Support. starship.paint ~ KO 12:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian Rose

Recusing from coord duties as I enjoy the history of sf magazines even though I hardly ever read them...

Not much to copyedit, reads well as usual.
No dab or dup links.
Structure and level of detail in keeping with similar articles.
Taking Nikki's image review as read.
Sources look impeccable, just a couple of formatting queries/suggestions:
- For the last citation to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (FN12), shouldn't we have Gollanz as publisher as well?
  Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it fair to ask for publishing and access dates to be written in full rather than in that template-y format?
  I used that format because I was getting some kind of error when I used the full dates; I remember being baffled by that. Whatever I was seeing, it's not happening now, so I've changed the dates (and added a missing source date). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's quite common to use authorlink (on first appearance) in the cite book template -- do you prefer not to?
  No, just habit; I should try to get in the habit of adding these. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In the absence of an ISBN, could we have the OCLC for Science-Fiction Handbook?
  I can't find the 1953 edition there -- this only shows 1975 and later. I haven't done much searching with Worldcat; is there something I'm missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Try here -- page three of the WorldCat listing. Tks for changes! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it, well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support; and I'm glad you enjoy the articles! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Andy, I'm available to do a prose review if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'm offering only because this one is growing whiskers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks for the offer but looking through this, I don't think additional review should be necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 23 August 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. --Laser brain (talk) 01:52, 24 August 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.