Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Science Fiction Adventures (1956 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2023 [1].

Science Fiction Adventures (1956 magazine)

edit
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s. It was never prominent, but it did publish material by some well-known writers, such as Harlan Ellison and Robert Silverberg. It's short, but I've included everything I can find about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Chris

edit

Image review

Source review - pass

edit
  • All sources are suitable, and although there aren't many of them, seem adequate for the article based on my attempts to find more.
  • Optionally, use IABot (if it's working) or add an archive url for The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction source manually. (If you choose not to, then you could remove "url-status=live" from the citation.)
  • Optionally, author-link Brian Stableford, Mike Ashley (writer), Larry Shaw (editor), Donald H. Tuck and Robert Weinberg (author)
  • Spot checks to follow.
    Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All done; I only added the first instance for the author-links in the reference list as I don't see any reason to repeat the link when they're alphabetical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Shaw source isn't used in the footnotes. (Seems to me that it should be be added after "...be an antidote for that situation'"). The Shaw quote is indeed in that source.
  • Spot check on Cook (1983) - no issue.
  • Spot check on The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Six of Silverberg's early novels first saw print in SF Adventures - no issues.
  • Spot checks on Ashley (2005) (Silverberg was by far the most prolific contributor, providing over a quarter of the contents of the magazine, and Ashley considers that Shaw intended to attract younger readers than Infinity was aimed at) - no issues.
  • Not a source issue, but Mike Ashley (writer) could be linked in the article body.
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

I expect to get to this later. Given the size of the article, though, I may be able to complete this review relatively quickly. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • "which had been launched the previous year" - Launched the year before Science Fiction Adventures launched, I assume?
    Yes; I made this "in 1955", to be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other well-known writers occasionally appeared" - Given that the magazine only had 12 issues in total, I wonder whether "occasionally" means "one or two issues", or whether it means "sporadically throughout the magazine's run".
    In some cases I think these writers had only one story in the magazine -- I don't think the timing is as relevant to a reader as the fact that Shaw was at times able to acquire material from good writers. The article is so short that I didn't feel it was necessary to summarize Ashley's comments about quality (in the second paragraph of the contents section), but I could add a little if you think this is opaque. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a clarification to that extent would be much appreciated. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, I didn't realize that the magazine only had 12 total issues until the end of the first paragraph. Perhaps this fact could be made more prominent.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the sister magazine, Infinity" - Doesn't the article already mention that Infinity was the sister magazine to Science Fiction Adventures?
    Yes; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history and contents
  • "In 1955, Irwin Stein, the owner of Royal Publications, decided to launch two magazines: Infinity Science Fiction and Suspect Detective Stories. ... he simply retitled Suspect to Science Fiction Adventures" - I'm a little confused. Was Science Fiction Adventures the continuation of Suspect, or was Science Fiction Adventures just reusing Suspect's volume numbering scheme?
    It is confusing. Suspect was really nothing to do with Science Fiction Adventures, but when Stein gave up on Suspect after five issues and decided to launch SFA he didn't want to spend the time or money to get a new second-class mailing permit. The Post Office didn't mind if a magazine's title changed -- see Saturn for example, which changed several times and ended up nothing like the original magazine. But in that case the changes were fairly gradual. Here Stein kept the old volume numbering but changed everything else about the magazine, so evidently the USPS decided that Stein was just starting a completely new magazine and told him he had to get a new mailing permit. When he did, he gave up the façade of the old numbering and just made the second one volume 1 number 2. I didn't want to go into a long digression about this in the article, and some parts of the explanation I can't really source anyway. Do you think it needs to be clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, after rereading the article, I find that the situation isn't as confusing as I thought. It seems to me that the USPS didn't require a new second-class mailing permit for magazines that were merely renamed, but that the USPS did require a new second-class mailing permit for completely new magazines, which is understandable. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9 issues between 1952 and 1954" - I would spell this out as "nine issues" per MOS:NUMERAL
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The US Post Office" - Could this be linked to the United States Postal Service?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the stories rarely exceeded 20,000 words" - Is the 20,000-word figure referring to the typical length of novels at the time?
    No, even a short novel would have been 40,000 or more words; I think a typical paperback of the day would have been around 55,000 words. I think all he's saying is that these were clearly not really novels. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " so in 1957, when he decided to increase the magazines' frequency" - Judging by the Bibliographical details section, I assume this change occurred in the middle of that year (between June and August)?
    In fact the gap between April and June was the first shortened gap. I could put the details in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that would make sense. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Towards the end of the magazine's run" - I'd clarify that this is towards the end of the American magazine's run. This sentence comes right after the British magazine is mentioned, so the phrase "the magazine" has no clear referent.
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text never explicitly says when the last issue was printed, but the Bibliographical details section indicates that the magazine ceased publication in June 1958.
    Clarified in the bibliographic section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliographical details
  • " the numbering was completely regular" - This could potentially be confusing, since "completely regular" could mean that the second issue was 1/7, the third issue was 1/8, etc. But, since there's a table on the right, there's nothing wrong with this per se.
    OK -- I did put in the "thereafter" to make that clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
That's really all that I have. It's a short article, but a nice one. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I've responded to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick responses. There are only a few things that need to be addressed, but otherwise I think this is good enough for the bronze star. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like two things left? I think this takes care of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - these changes look good. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

edit

Will review this soon. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • [[digest-size]] [[science fiction magazine]] is a bit MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
    Removed the first link. I usually put those in because sometimes people ask about it, but you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sf historian" looks a bit funny. I realise that you are using uppercase and lowercase "sf", "SF", "Sf" just as the word "science fiction" would be written. Is this standard practice or your personal style?
    "sf" is the standard abbreviation used by nearly all the standard references; "SF" occurs too but is less common. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Suspect Detective Stories. As it is a red link, can you tell us a little bit about its content in addition to the editorial history? (Did it indeed feature detective stories?)
    There are a couple of quotes about it, from Ashley and Cook; do you think we need more? I do have a source that covers it (Cook) but he only has a page on it and if/when I do create that article it's going to be very short. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that it indeed covered exclusively mystery detective stories, it is probably sufficient.
    I reread Cook and he says "fast-action, contemporary, crime adventures", so I added ""action-adventure crime fiction" to the description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did the US Post Office care about the numbering scheme?
    See my answer to Epicgenius above. Since you're asking too, I think I probably do have to expand this, but let me know what you think after reading the explanation above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please explain the issue with the new second-class mailing permit so we understand the context of "deceived".
    Expanded this a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering whether the long "publication history and content" section could be split up (by moving the "In Shaw's first editorial" paragraph to a new section).
    For longer articles I usually have a "Publication history" section and a "Contents" section, since the two narratives (one about the business, one about the writing) really don't overlap much. I didn't think I had enough material to do that here, but I've tried it as you suggest: see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is better, although "Editorial policy and contents" or "Content and editorial attitude" or something would describe the new section more precisely.
    I usually title these sections either "Contents" or "Contents and reception"; here there's not much reception information. I think editorial approaches are naturally discussed as part of magazine content, since after all the editor is the reason the content is the way it is, so I'd like to leave it with the shorter title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six of Silverberg's early novels": a glance at Robert Silverberg bibliography suggests we might have articles about some of them, so they could be mentioned?
    The source doesn't name them, and a look at a couple of references doesn't make it obvious which ones they were, so I'm reluctant to do more original research. Stableford (the source) is probably referring to Lest We Forget Thee, Earth as one of them, but he doesn't say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Lest We Forget Thee, Earth
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth adjusting the 35 cents for inflation?
    I don't think so -- it's easy to do if you think I should, but the reader can tell it's a small amount and wouldn't be surprised by the inflated equivalent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
    Sure, makes sense. Indeed more interesting context would be the price of other magazines at the time.
    It was a typical price, but unfortunately I don't really have a source that talks about the prices across the market -- I know it's typical because I can look up the price of all the competing magazines in the various sources. If I run across something like that I'll add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little article. I hope you find something useful in these comments. —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so; thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses interspersed above (the ones I don't respond to again are all fine); the main remaining issue from my side is the "deception" of the post office. —Kusma (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of additions made and responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all of my small concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. —Kusma (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by TompaDompa

edit

TompaDompa (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to follow in a couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history
Contents
  • "[wasn't]": as this isn't part of the direct quote, shouldn't it be "was not"?
    Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Shaw's editorial in the first issue, he lamented that science fiction was losing a sense of wonder, and "[wasn't] as much fun to read as it used to be", and claimed that by focusing on adventure fiction "carried by a good story", Science Fiction Adventures would "be an antidote for that situation".[7]" This is a bit of a long and clumsy with the "and ... and". Could do with a bit of refining?
    Split into two sentences. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "volume 1 number 6 because of Stein's attempt to make the magazine a continuation" You've already covered this above
    I'd like to leave this as is, though you're right that it's covered earlier. To me the point of a bibliographic section like this is to collect all the minutiae that would clog up the narrative if included in the earlier sections. Having a section like that is less useful if it omits anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot – a great read, as always. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties to review, my support will hardly be necessary at this stage but I was missing Mike's SF mag articles and need my fix... ;-)

  • As ever, let me know any concerns at all with my habitual copyedit.
  • Content-wise, at this stage I'm just wondering if we could mention some example stories by Ellison, Budrys, Kornbluth, Harrison, or Brunner. I get that the main name in terms of contributions was Silverberg but if Ellison was a regular too it'd be fair to mention one or two of his stories, and if any of the less numerous contributions from the others were notable (I guess I'm saying Wiki-notable, and of course they might not be)...

Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedit looks fine, as always. Re the stories: neither of the two sources gives titles, instead just listing the authors' names as notable contributors. The only reliable source I could use to get story titles is this, which is an index; I could easily go through the content listings and find the stories by those names, and mention them in the article. I probably can't say anything about the stories themselves, though, unless I can then find discussion of those stories elsewhere (which is possible). Without the main sources naming stories, do you think this is worthwhile? Usually I limit myself to naming stories singled out by the secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike, I realise it was a bit of a long shot...! I think your approach is correct, i.e. basing mentions on what the secondary sources allow. A lot of my stuff is packed away at present, I take it there was nothing worth grabbing from Billion/Trillion Year Spree or Holdstock's Encyclopedia? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that's not already covered -- Aldiss doesn't mention the magazine at all, and Ashley's article in the Holdstock Encyclopedia just mentions it in passing while talking about the UK edition. I did consider merging the Science Fiction Adventures (British magazine) article in with this, as in origin the UK version was just a reprint edition, but the UK edition eventually turned into a completely separate magazine. This is a very short article, and the UK one is probably going to be so short I won't take it past GA, so on length grounds they could be merged, but on balance I think they're independent enough to be separate articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that's a support from me then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 22 March 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/Science_Fiction_Adventures_(1956_magazine)/archive1&oldid=1146790967"