Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Spider (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2023 [1].

The Spider (magazine)

edit
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the hero pulps that were popular during the 1930s. It includes everything I've been able to find on the topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thebiguglyalien

edit

This one looks interesting. I'll have a review posted within a few days. If you or any other reviewer is interested, I currently have an open FAC that could use more feedback. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I should be able to take a look at that FAC in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General notes:

  • Several points throughout the article where a comma is used to connect a dependent clause.
    Can you give me an example? AmEng and BrEng often disagree about commas; I know this should be in AmEng but my usage is a horrible mix and a pointer would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This could be a UK/US thing, or as is sometimes the case, it could be that I don't know what I'm talking about. But it's the difference between a complex sentence (no comma) and a compound sentence (needs a comma). Looking at the sentence "The first issue was dated October 1933, and carried a lead novel titled The Spider Strikes by Scott." The second clause doesn't have a subject, so it's a complex sentence and doesn't need a comma. Alternatively, if it were "The first issue was dated October 1933, and it carried a lead novel titled The Spider Strikes by Scott.", then it would be a compound sentence, and the comma would be appropriate. A Google search does seem to confirm that complex sentences do not need commas if the independent clause comes first (but the sources were mainly university level, so this is probably more of a formal writing thing than a widely used rule). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info about the legacy or influence of this work? Or was it essentially forgotten after WWII?
    There are still plenty of pulp fans, and there is to some extent a franchise here -- the films, for example, and comics and graphic novels. That's currently covered at Spider (pulp fiction character). I hesitated over what to include here -- I eventually chose to include the movie image just because it was contemporary and I had little choice of other images I could use. I think this article is one aspect of the overall franchise, even though it is what launched it, so I think the more general material should be covered in the parent article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "such as a metal-eating virus, or giant robots" & "planning to sell human flesh as meat" – These feel like the specific details that are better left for the body.
    Done.
  • "Bittner had had experience" – I know this is correct, but would a single "had" still be correct?
    Went with "had written for", which I hope gets around the issue (and you're right, "had had" is a bit ugly). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York would be miraculously resurrected" & "characters killed in one issue reappearing unscathed" – Inconsistent tense
    Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting characters, Legend in Blue Steel, editor rewriting, Scott's influence on the rest of the series, the art, and the existence of short stories are all things that could be mentioned in the lead. The latter seems especially important since the short stories were their own aspect of the magazine independent of the main novel.
    I've done some of this. I don't disagree with you, but it's not a very long article and I don't want to overload the lead relative to the body. Let me know if you think more is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history:

  • "In 1931 Street & Smith" – A comma should follow "In 1931". But given how many commas this would put in the sentence, it might be better to rewrite it altogether.
    I made it "In 1931, Street & Smith launched The Shadow, the first of the hero pulps": I think the fact that they're a pulp publisher is obvious enough to be omitted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was an immediate success" – Is there any context for this? What constituted a success for this sort of thing?
    Success means high circulation, which often leads to higher frequency publication -- weekly, or twice-monthly. It's not easy to get accurate circulation figures for this era, for a couple of reasons. The source I used to talk about the early success of The Shadow in that article only says it was successful, and gives circulation numbers only for "within a few short years". So I don't think there's anything quotable here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lead characters in mystery stories in the 1920s" – Two "in"s could be avoided with "in 1920s mystery stories"
    Yes, much better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "antagonists, and very rarely killed" – Either "antagonists and very rarely killed" or "antagonists, and they very rarely killed". The comma is currently used to combine a dependent clause instead of an independent clause.
    I don't know this as a rule -- not to say you're wrong, but I am again wondering if this is a US vs. UK English issue. Of the two options you give I'd prefer to just cut the comma and will probably do that, but I'm going to pack it in for the night and sleep on it first. If you have a link to an explanation of the rule I'd be interested to see it. Back tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now removed the comma. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it is possible that" – Is this an idea held by a specific source (in which case in-text attribution might be appropriate), or a generally accepted idea?
    Ashley says "it has been suggested by Will Murray and others"; Murray is the other source I cite, so in a sense that's not independent, but since Ashley says "and others", I think more than one expert considers this possible. That doesn't make it generally accepted as the most likely situation, but I think it can be presented as a possibility in this way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was presented as by" – Can this be reworded?
    I made it "was credited to". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "almost the end of the magazine's run" – Reword?
    Can you say what you think is the issue here? Is "magazine's run" jargon? I could make it "took over until the second-to-last issue" if that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, Page, Tepperman and Bittner:

  • I'm not sure about using the writers' names as the subheading here. It would make sense if the next subsection were a different set of writers, but it's currently just being used as a summary of the entire plot and setting for the main novels.
    I've changed this to "Lead novel writers" -- I was avoiding that because the section has nothing to say about Winchell, whose novel appeared in the very last issue, but I think it's OK -- and as you say listing the names isn't really the right heading for the section either. Perhaps that still doesn't address your point, though -- would something like "Characters and plot" be better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "secret identity" is typically understood to mean the civilian identity rather than the hero identity. This is both here and in the lead.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott's Secret Service Smith – This is a little vague. Maybe "Scott's previous character, Secret Service Smith" (assuming I read this correctly)
    This is explained in the previous section -- does it need explaining again here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the issue is probably that I got up from my chair after reading the first section and forgot what it said. No editing can fix my attention span. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nita Van Sloan, who occasionally took on the identity of The Spider herself" – This stands out to me as significant. Were there a lot of female characters in hero pulp who got involved in the action?
    That's a good question, but I'm not aware of any sources that discuss it, unfortunately. There might be some cultural overview articles on pulp fiction that talk about that sort of thing but I haven't found anything of that kind that mentions the Spider. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure of the second paragraph here seems strange. It starts with "Other regular characters included", but then it just describes one, and then ends the sentence. Maybe "Other regular characters included Professor Brownlee and Police Commissioner Stanley Kirkpatrick. Brownlee was..."
    Yes, much better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scott's two novels" – This might be worded in a way so that the reader remembers they're the first two.
    Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he would mark their bodies with a red spider" – This makes it sound like an actual live spider until the next sentence.
    I made it "an inked red spider" -- does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his appearance at well" – at will?
    Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internal inconsistencies:

  • "Murray cites Spider novels in which the villain is revealed to have been only a minor character in the plot" – This seems to be a characterization or structure problem rather than a logic or inconsistency problem.
    Looking at the source, Murray is really talking about Page's plots at that point, so I moved that comment up to the discussion of Page's novels. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the damage to New York, this section doesn't really provide any specific examples, which might be beneficial if there were any that appear prominently in the sources.
    The section does mention Master of the Death Machine as an example -- it doesn't explain what the lapses in logic were, but neither does the source, so there's not much more I can do there. I could give a bit more detail about individual characters being killed off and resurrected, but I felt it would be odd to just pick one out and not explain the problems with the other characters. There's not a lot more detail available, but there is some -- for example I have "Van Sloan was eventually given four mutually contradictory histories": the source has "Nita Van Sloan is introduced in four different versions that vary by as much as fourteen years". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short stories and non-fiction features:

  • "The first issue included" – Is there a benefit to naming the specific stories of the first issue, especially if no further info about them is given?
    I go back and forth on this sort of thing. I think it can be worth it in that it gives a reader who might never had read a pre-internet fiction magazine, let alone a pulp magazine, a sense of what it included. However, here I think it's important because the point being made is that these biographical details became an ongoing feature, and are the source of some of the inconsistencies discussed in that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm understanding that these short stories did not feature The Spider and were otherwise entirely unrelated to the character? The article doesn't say this explicitly.
    That's correct. The sources don't say this explicitly either, but I was hoping it would be obvious from context. I could make it "ran short stories in each issue, alongside the lead novel, but not involving The Spider", but I'd have to think about how to cite that. The paragraph later describes the stories as detective fiction, without mentioning The Spider -- isn't that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was able to infer it from the context. I just wanted to make sure I inferred correctly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occasionally story elements – Comma
    Done. I think this is an American comma. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a review comment but just a stray thought: I wonder if the concept of reader's clubs warrant their own article. I know Marvel had an active one as late as the 1960s or 1970s.
    Nice idea. Difficult to pull together without a source that focuses on that specifically, but there might be such an article out there somewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • that concealed a rubber stamp that would – Can one of these "that"s be removed?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story about the fire is interesting, but I don't know how well it fits into the article. Did this affect Page's ability to work on the series?
    I would imagine that it affected his ability to refer to prior novels, which might explain some of the internal inconsistencies, but that's speculation. I'd like to keep it -- it's a nice associational anecdote, and the notice was printed in The Spider itself. The loss of the hat and cloak also seems like a nice thing to mention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art:

Bibliographic details:

Ping me with any thoughts or if all of the comments are addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, all addressed now. Thanks for the very detailed and helpful comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've elaborated on the comma thing above, but regardless of how that's resolved, I'm willing to support promotion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Re the commas, Sammi Brie has a reference page here that is useful for American English, though at my suggestion she marked it as applying less to British English. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

Will look at this, though others are welcome to jump in ahead of me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Norvell Page: should he (?) be redlinked, given that other authors of a similar apparent calibre are?
    Now linked; it was an oversight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with science fiction plot devices: I'd hyphenate as a compound modifier.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were frequent continuity problems from novel to novel: is problems the right word here? To me, that implies a judgement, that these were mistakes or deficiencies: aren't they rather tropes or commonplaces of the genre? After all, it would be a very different sort of story if The Spider spent each week "saving" a New York that his actions were increasingly reducing to ashes. Suggest something to the effect that the publication did not generally observe or establish continuity between different novels.
    Sampson presents it as a problem, and since he's knowledgeable about all the hero pulps I think we can take it that it's not the norm. Sampson says "This continued indifference to the internal integrity of the series devils you throughout the series", and then lists both the inconsistent back stories and the repair of all the damage to the city in the same paragraph. Still, I think you're right that this could stand rephrasing. I made it "Continuity from novel to novel was often disregarded"; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that's fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York would be miraculously resurrected each issue: unless we mean that some in-universe miracle occurred, I would rephrase.
    I just cut the adjective; I don't think it's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occasionally these include elements of horror fiction, but never fantasy: never of fantasy, or perhaps something more nuanced: superheroes stories are, by definition, fantasy in the true sense. I think we mean that they never contained tropes or elements characteristically or exclusively associated with the fantasy genre, but framing that correctly might take a bit of thought.
    I trimmed it to "Occasionally these included elements of horror fiction, but any apparently supernatural phenomena were always explained away", which I hope avoids the issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest explaining what a hero pulp was per MOS:NOFORCELINK.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steeger choose the title: chose?
    Typo; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead characters in 1920s mystery stories usually shot to wound their antagonists, and very rarely killed: suggest another go at this sentence: perhaps something like "rarely killed their antagonists; they sometimes shot at them, but only to wound".
    I made it "Lead characters in 1920s mystery stories usually shot to wound rather than to kill their antagonists."
  • Steeger decided that The Spider would, like The Shadow, kill criminals without hesitation: a buried lead here: we should back up and say first of all that The Shadow did kill criminals without hesitation.
    I'm not sure I agree. I want the sentence to convey the fact that Steeger made an editorial decision, based on the change in the genre through the 1920s; that has to be prior to the outcome of the decision, which is The Shadow's behaviour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so The Shadow didn't kill criminals before this moment? In which case, I'd suggest both The Spider and The Shadow would..., as that's not the surface reading we have here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, sorry, typing without reading. I meant to type "The Spider", not "The Shadow". The Shadow was willing to kill criminals from the first issue of The Shadow; Steeger was making a decision to have The Spider be in the same mould as The Shadow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not stylistically great to introduce new information in a clause like "like the Shadow": it gives the impression that we're assuming the reader already knew it. Could perhaps do something like Steeger decided that The Spider would kill criminals without hesitation, following the precedent established by The Shadow [maybe: since Year/Date]? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had another look and decided it was simpler to cut it; the source emphasizes the role of Dime Detective in Steeger's decision; The Shadow is more a competitor than an inspiration for this, so cutting hews more closely to the source and avoids the stylistic point you raise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • well-known for his stories: dehyphenate, as the compound adjective isn't in apposition with a noun.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is likely that Terrill never intended Scott to write every lead novel: a bit confusing and clunky with the sequence of likely ... never ... every. Suggest something like "Terrill likely intended for other writers, alongside Scott, to contribute lead novels".
    Reworked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • whose name was identical to his father's: simply named after his father or of the same name?
    I think "identical", or something equally strong, is needed; the reader should understand that "R. T. M. Scott" could have been either of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "also known as R. T. M. Scott? After all, even having the same name is no guarantee that they would use it in the same way: the son might have been known as R. T. Scott or "Reginald Scott". UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That works well; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • also wrote mystery fiction, and was working at Popular at the time, and it is possible that one of the first two novels, both of which were credited to Scott, was written partly or wholly by his son: Double and is awkward: I would split this long sentence.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a lead novel titled The Spider Strikes by Scott: was the novel by Scott, or did he just give it the title?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page was initially paid $500 for each novel, but this was soon increased to $600 and then $700.: can we give a flavour of how much this was? Was that normal for a writer of Page's genre and calibre in the period?
    I'd like to be able to do this but I would need a source talking about pay rates. Here and there in the various sources I have on the period I can find notes about how much writer X was paid, but I think I'd need a secondary source explicitly talking about rates to make a judgemental comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it depends how specific we want to be: surely we can get some idea of how far $500 would have gone for an average person (how did it stack up versus an average monthly wage, for example?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added the inflation template to translate $500 into the modern equivalent value -- that's easier to source than the typical payment an author received. I only did it for the first value because I think that gives enough context for the reader to get the idea of the second two values. Thinking about the rates some more, a 50,000 word novel at $500 is 1 cent per word, which is within the range of what a writer of those days could expect. The trouble is I have no idea what the word count actually was -- it could have been anything from 30,000 to twice that -- so all I'd be able to say is that it was within a range broad enough to be uninformative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A perfectly good solution: the closer we get to the present day, the better that template works, and I think we're close enough here to make it serviceable enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • after which Page took over until almost the end of the magazine's run: I would give a more specific date, if only for the end of the magazine's run: I had forgotten and had to look back up for it.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has never been a US Office of War: there's a United States Department of War, but I think what is meant here is the United States Office of War Information. I would briefly explain what that was, especially as its name is slightly euphemistic.
    I took the organization name from the source, without realizing that it had to be wrong, but I think you're right about what is intended. I've made that change, but have no source to hand to explain what that was; I'll try to find something after I've finished replying to your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winchell's novel, When Satan Came to Town, was the lead novel: can we do something about the repetition?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • was rediscovered in 1978, and published as a paperback in 1979: reads better without the comma, as the second clause is only short.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smith, Wentworth had a Hindu servant, though Ram Singh was "more ferocious" than Smith's assistant Langa Doon: it's implied, but would be better writing to make explicit, that Ram Singh is Wentworth's servant (do we definitely mean Hindu here? Singh is a definingly Sikh name.)
    Done. Rereading the source it describes Singh as both Hindu and Sikh, but rather than try to clear that up I just made it "Indian". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a woman who shared their adventures, and loved them but never married them: drop the 'and', but this might be worth a second look: did the woman love the heroes, or the heroes love the women?
    Looking at the source again Murray really only says "love interest", so I cut that phrase. I use "love interest" in the next sentence, which I hope is not a problem; it's hard to find a different phrase that doesn't imply the direction of love. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • making an exception to his violent code: we've established that The Spider lacked a code of non-violence, but this is the first I'm hearing that he had a positively violent set of personal rules. Is that quite what we mean?
    I think so -- he was perfectly happy to kill criminals in large numbers. Or do you mean that it could be taken as a proxy for cruelty? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a difference between saying that The Spider was violent (ie, he had no rules against using violence), and that he had "a violent code" (ie, he had some kind of creed that commanded him to be violent). It sounds like we mean the first but have written the second. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. After thinking about it some more I've cut that clause completely -- the contrast doesn't have to be explicitly drawn for the reader -- it's pretty clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • rarely returned their fire--": double hyphen to endash or emdash, as your preference takes you.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as in this scene from the first issue: "From a cunning artifice contrived at the bottom of his cigarette lighter, [Wentworth] withdrew a tiny seal and pressed it upon the forehead of the dead man. There, close to the small hole, was clearly depicted, in rich vermilion, the tiny outline of an ugly spider ...": the quote reads a little clumsily in prose, and I'm not sure what it adds to the sentence it's in. Perhaps pop it into a blockquote template?
    I'd like to avoid making it a blockquote as long as there's an image to the left -- it ends up looking a bit odd in that situation. The quote is mostly there for colour, though it's also the case that it's an iconic part of The Spider's methods. I could trim it or cut it if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - I meant a quote box rather than a blockquote. Purely a suggestion: it does add some colour, and I think that's more the role of a quote box (which is a substitute for an illustration) rather than for such a big piece of article text. However, trimming would also be an option. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried this; haven't used a quote box before, as far as I can recall. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good from a layout point of view, though would use the |source= parameter to say where the quote is from. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Fly: should the the be capitalised, as it is for The Spider?
    Sampson is inconsistent about this and I have no access to the original text; I've changed it to "The" on the principle of least surprise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • innocence bystanders: innocent bystanders?
    Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest explaining weird menace, again per MOS:NOFORCELINK.
    I cut this to "Bittner had experience writing for Popular's Terror Tales and Horror Stories, and his background in horror fiction": the particular kind of horror is not really important for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the life of the magazine, Popular's editors had always rewritten parts of the manuscript whenever it was thought necessary: this is a bit flabby: throughout the life of the magazine, always and whenever it was thought necessary all seem to be saying the same thing.
    Agreed. Cut to "Popular's editors rewrote parts of the lead novels whenever necessary". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could even cut further - I doubt anyone would think that they rewrote them unnecessarily - to something like "Popular's editors rewrote parts of some of the lead novels". UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Popular's editors sometimes rewrote parts of the lead novels": I added "sometimes" to avoid implying that every novel had significant rewrites. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a better solution than mine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a short fictional biographical sketch - consider cutting fictional, as you can't have a non-fiction biography of a fictional character.
    I added "fictional" because without it the term "biographical" seems to imply that somebody is treating it as non-fiction. (You made me think of this, though I doubt that's helpful.) I'll cut it if you think it's better without; I do see the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure it's a major issue: one option would be to rephrase without the word biography at all, but then I understand that it's written in the style of a "real" biography, and your current framing conveys that nicely.
    UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • characters that Page killed off: a little informal, perhaps, and certainly a MOS:IDIOM.
    I'd like to keep this, though if you really dislike it I'll try and rephrase. To "kill off" a character might be idiomatic, but it's concise shorthand for "write in the death of a character". I don't know of another concise way to say it and I think it is generally understood. Just saying "killed" has the same problem as omitting "fictional" in the previous point -- "killed off" can't be misread as referring to real people, but "killed" can. Idioms are to be avoided because they can be misunderstood, but I don't think there's any ambiguity here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My main issue is that it's informal: I don't think it's the right register for an encyclopaedia (though you'd certainly find it in other types of writing about these works, such as reviews in a newspaper). I'll have a think about better ways to write it: your point is a valid one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the damage inflicted on New York by The Spider's foes magically disappeared with the following issue: as with miraculous above, I'd rework magically unless the plots actually involved magic.
    Changed to "inexplicably". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first issue included: "Baited Death", by Leslie T. White, and "Murder Undercover", by Norvell Page: drop the colon.
    Aargh. Dropped. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occasionally story elements appeared to be fantasy, but these were always explained away by the end of the story: as above, all of the story elements were technically fantasy: I think we mean fantastical or even supernatural.
    Went with "supernatural". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a crime fighter or a crime-fighter?
    Had to look this up and it appears both are used, but the hyphenated form seems more common in AmEng so I went with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reader's club, The Spider League of Crime Prevention, was started; this was a common marketing tactic among pulp magazines, particularly the hero pulps: needs a slight rework, unless it was common for hero pulps to start clubs called The Spider League of Crime Prevention.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joining the club, which cost a quarter: I understand the US context to the article, but suggest rephrasing to "25 cents" (only once, or per year?) per MOS:COMMONALITY and for the benefit of non-American readers.
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joining the club ... brought the subscriber a signet ring: I think the idiom is bought, but either way MOS:IDIOM would suggest a slightly more down-the-line way of phrasing this. Perhaps something like "members were sent a signet ring..."?
    I did mean "brought", as in "doing X will bring a result of Y". I don't think of this as idiomatic, but if you think it's not naturally parseable that way I'll change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's easily parsed as long as English is your first language: it's difficult to put ourselves in the perspective of someone who doesn't speak good English, but these sorts of phrases often cause them difficulty. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Those who joined the club, for 25 cents, received a ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every kid in the country must have wore [sic] one at one time or another: is this a case for MOS:CONFORM where we can just fix the solecism/dialect without comment?
    I'm a fan of CONFORM, but I think this goes beyond its stated limitation to "formatting and other purely typographical elements". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the pencil and the ring are now rare collectors' items: I'm not comfortable citing this to a website that was using this claim to sell them. However, I wouldn't be totally averse to using the price for which they sold.
    Would you be OK with just cutting "rare"? I am quite sure they truly are rare, but the prices are high enough that I think we can say they are collectors' items. The magazines themselves wouldn't sell for more than a fraction of that price. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you're basing that argument on the price for which they sold - in which case, is a better course of action just to say what that price was, and perhaps contextualise it versus a price for the comics, or high-demand comics sold in the same period? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (They're not comics, by the way! Totally different audience, perhaps surprisingly.) The price is certainly an indicator, but in addition my experience of reading auctions online tells me that a reputable auction house doesn't list something as rare unless it is -- they would immediately lose the trust of the knowledgeable collectors who are the likely buyers. I see people listing non-rare items on eBay and claiming they're scarce, but you don't see that from auction houses or specialized book dealers. If I can convey the point via the price as you suggest that would work too, though. I thought of "Both the pencil and the ring now sell for thousands of dollars in good condition" but that makes a generalization that a single sale doesn't really support; perhaps these are the only good condition ones that have sold in the last twenty years ... Any thoughts about phrasing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we have "an example of the pencil sold in [year] for [amount], while one of the rings sold at [amount] in [year/the same year]." UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WL Louvre.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spider was published by Popular Publications, and produced 118 issues: I think Popular produced the editions, not The Spider.
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was pulp format for all issues; it began at 128 pages and was reduced to 112 pages after March 1936: I don't know much about the technical terms here: what exactly do we mean by pulp format? I wonder how connected these two clauses are.
    Pulp format meant a particular size (about 7" x 10") and the use of pulp paper, almost always in signatures of 16 pages, so the page count would be a multiple of 16. This is covered in pulp magazine, but that link is all the way back in the lead, so I've relinked here. You're right that there's not much direct connection between the format and the page count (though my eye would immediately spot the multiple-of-16 point) but without some such connective tissue this paragraph would be a lot of very short sentences. I'd like to leave this as is to make it smoother to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: are we sure that Steeger meant that in earnest?
    It seems so. That's sourced to Server's Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers; Server says "Page himself was said to have been something of a mysterious, eccentric figure, wrapped up in his stories and his characters, particularly the Spider. His boss Henry Steeger recalled that Page would wear a wide-brimmed black hat and black cape and may have come to believe he was his famous superhero. Others remembered Page in the same outfit, roaming up and own the sunny beaches of Ana Maria, a resort and pulp writer colony on Florida's Gulf Coast." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for the detailed comments; I appreciate it. All addressed or comments left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist: More responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looks very reasonable: might be a little while until I can give a proper reply, but will try to pick off those that need it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'd appreciate a call on "killed off" one way or another: I have my own view there, but it would be silly in the utmost to oppose on the basis of a disagreement over it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just made it "characters that died in one of Page's novels reappeared in later issues"; does that work? A little less fluent but I hope it addresses the issue. And thanks for the support, and (again) for the thorough review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does. A pleasure, as always. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

From a first canter-through looking for typos etc:

  • the secret identify – identity?
  • in the same mould – isn't "mold" the normal AmE spelling?
  • included sketchese of Wentworth – sketches?

More to come after a proper read-through. Tim riley talk 07:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed -- thanks, Tim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a careful perusal I have only two further quibbles. The mention of a quarter as the membership fee of the club could do with a blue link for the benefit of non-Americans who have no idea what a quarter is in this context. And the 63-word quote in the Art section would, I think, be better as a blockquote. Otherwise no concerns. A surprisingly good read, evidently well sourced and proportionate and, I'm sure, as well illustrated as an article on a magazine of this vintage could be. Happy to support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 22:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim -- I changed "quarter" to "25 cents" per a comment above, so perhaps that no longer requires a link, and I block-quoted as suggested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spotchecks not done) from Therapyisgood

edit
  • Ref 34: needs an ndash and to be pp instead of p
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mix of ISBN styles in references (ie compare Backer, Ron (2010) [no dashes]) to Sampson, Robert (1987). Note Wikipedia:ISBN#Types says the 13 number style should be used if provided by original. "Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work." But, " if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it"
    Hyphenated the Backer ISBN.
  • I'm getting an error using my web browser (An error occurred during a connection to www.philsp.com. PR_END_OF_FILE_ERROR) on the Galactic Central refs (archives work OK). I tried in Chrome and got a different error.
    They were doing an upgrade run yesterday and you may have been trying to access those pages while it was happening -- I just tried a few and they're working for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you seeing the author in ref 12?
    At the end of each article on that website are the contributor initials, which can be translated to names here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spider's run: The Spider's Web (1938) and The Spider Returns (1941).[50][5] flip refs
    Done, but FYI per WP:REFORDER "references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Server, Lee (2002): any specific city?
    It's New York, NY -- I didn't add the state name because it's one of the cities that doesn't require it. To be honest I can't remember where on Wikipedia I saw this, though I know for example AP-style has a list of 15 or so cities that don't require the state. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN in Backer, Ron (2010) links me to the physical book but the ref doesn't cite a page number, consider dropping ISBN. Additionally consider using |format=e-book for this ref if it's the one you're using. if you're using the physical book, cite a page no. in the references and drop the url.
    I was searching what I found in Google Books. E-books should also have ISBNs but I can't find one for this, so I figured this approach (use the hardback ISBN, which is supposed to be the same text) and the search string would be the best option. I could change format to e-book but I'm not sure what the problem is with the current citation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Server, Lee (2002). Pulp Fiction Writers. New York: Checkmark Books. ISBN 0-8160-4577-1. this is coming back on WorldCat as being published by Facts on File, additionally the title appears to be Encyclopedia of pulp fiction writers instead of just Pulp Fiction Writers.
    Title changed; thanks for catching that. Checkmark Books is an imprint of Facts on File. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All from me. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- all responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therapyisgood, pinging to check if the above responses are sufficient. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:31, 11 October 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/The_Spider_(magazine)/archive1&oldid=1180967025"