This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
another generally pretty solid article. My investigation into sources indicates this article is a comprehensive look at the subject and I have only some minor content complaints/questions.
Thanks for the review. We're now having the house painted, so I will have to hunt under drop-cloths for refs, but I'll make a pass through and see what I can get to today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Looks like everything is pretty much done except the title. Once you determine which title the article should have we can move the page (or not) and add a parenthetical aside in the first line of the lede noting the "other" title. I'm happy to keep the review on hold as long as you need to resolve that. Thanks for the updates! Protonk (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "Ten Story Fantasy" or "10 Story Fantasy"? I see the former in the lede (and the title) and the latter in the body. It appears that most bibliographic references refer to it as 10 Story Fantasy (though not all sources do). We should pick one and stick with it (including moving the article if necessary)
Tymn & Ashley have "Ten"; the online SF Encyclopedia has "10". I recall looking through several refs and picking "Ten" because it was the majority, but I can't find Ashley's Transformations, which I would like to check to be sure. Can we put this one on hold for a week or two? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can put it on hold as long as it needs to be to get it right. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find my copy of the magazine in the basement, and I checked the masthead; it's "10 Story Fantasy". Would it make sense to close the GA first and then do the move, or vice versa? If you move it first that would confuse Legobot, wouldn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Oh, that's a good point. I'll pass this. Once legobot has done its ministrations you can move it and note both titles in the lede (10 Story Fantasy is a redlink right now so the move shouldn't take any special tools). Protonk (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And now we wait... :) Protonk (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, actually Done now. I don't think there's anything left outstanding from the review. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...a romance magazine, a western, and a science fiction pulp..." Why is it a romance magazine, nothing for the western and an sf pulp (which in the next sentence is referred to as an sf magazine)?
Just trying to avoid repetition -- all three were pulp magazines, but I don't want to say "a romance pulp magazine, a western pulp magazine, and an sf pulp magazine". How about "trying new pulp magazines in three genres: romance, westerns, and science fiction. The sf pulp, titled Out of This World Adventures, lasted for ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite this failure, Joseph Meyers..." surely "these failures" (haha, I love starting sentences with "surely")
Done -- I guess I was thinking that the launch of all three counted as a single attempt, but it reads better with the plural. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is it worth abbreviating "science fiction" as "(sf)" at some point?
Done -- I avoid it for really short articles, but the suggested rephrase a couple of points above uses it naturally, so I think it's worth doing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"that of Out of This World Adventures: both magazine..." magazines
"...both magazine had unusually elaborate artwork for the table of contents, and in both magazines the first letter of each story was decorated with black and white art." I can't pin down what bothers me about this sentence (clause, w/e). I like the overall structure but something smells wrong. Feel free to look it over closely and tell me I'm crazy.
I read it through a couple of times and don't see anything wrong. Can you suggest a rephrase that you like better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that counts as looking closely and telling me I'm crazy. :) DoneProtonk (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...mostly supplied by William McWIlliam and "Martin"..." Can't just introduce a pseudonym like that and leave me hanging. :) Who is "Martin" (aside from someone who worked in Avon's art department)? Did "Martin" draw the cover art and that's why the artist is unknown?
Unfortunately that's all the source gives. I did some googling to try to figure this out but got nowhere. Not sure how I could handle this more gracefully -- I don't want to put in a footnote that says, essentially, "No, I don't know who this is". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could say "an artist identified only as "Martin"", but you're right about a footnote probably not being necessary. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like (from the source I found) the title wasn't just subsequently reprinted w/ "No Place like Earth" but simultaneously printed w/ that title in New Worlds.
According to ISFDB page on that issue of New Worlds it was titled "No Place Like Earth" there; I'm inclined to believe that as the annotations indicate that one of the ISFDB's editors had a physical copy to hand and verified it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one has been resolved with the Carnell bit. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it is far and away the most famous thing to come out of this magazine, do you think it's worth noting that "Sentinel of Eternity" was originally submitted to a BBC contest and sold to Ten when it lost? It's mentioned in the sentinel article but it's kind of a fun fact and a lot of the fun in reading about these magazines (for me) is seeing the weird, circuitous ways stories took to get to print. Up to you, tho.
Will add this; probably not today -- I agree it's the sort of colour that is worth putting in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the quality of the stories was high..." should this be "was" or "were"? Also I'm assuming the juxtaposition between quality and the refusal to commit is made by Bousfield, not us.
I think it's "was" -- the subject is "quality", not stories. Re your second question, here's the source: "... despite the skilled direction of its editor, Donald A. Wollheim, it lacked a sustained commitment from its publisher. The one issue that did appear is, however, remarkable for the quality of both its art and fiction." I guess I merged these two a little bit; do you think that's OK? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Just wanted to check. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't need changing unless you agree but the bibliographic details has a lot of sentenes that start with "The <thing> was...". Is that deliberate?
No, and I agree it's a bit ugly. Rephrased a little to reduce the effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
doi:10.1017/S0361233300001976 Not available on JSTOR (and I wouldn't expect you to pay the absurd price they're asking) but text search indicates it mentions the string "Ten Story Fantasy" and the content looks cool enough that maybe a wikipedian w/ access to a college library could grab it.
I think I plugged it in wrong. That'll teach me to not just use URLs lol. Don't worry about it. If I find it again I'll leave a note on your talk page. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Future and Fantastic Worlds: A Bibliographical Retrospective of DAW Books, 1972-1987 by Sheldon Jaffery (1987) ISBN1557420025
The forward (page xii) has a (very) brief note on Wollheim before/after he edited Ten. Not necessarily worth adding to the article but worth mentioning here (screencap).
Hmm. Might have to pick that up if I want do more on Wollheim. I agree it doesn't add anything to this article, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Building New Worlds, 1946-1959: The Carnell Era, Volume One by John Boston and Damein Broderick (2013) ISBN1434447200
p. 62 notes Wyndham's cover story and the cover/retitling issue and thinks it's scandalous (screencap) also has some publication history we don't.
I can't tell if the extra bibliographic information is from Walt Willis or John Carnell. If the former, it's a bit tricky because Willis was a fan, and his comments would have been published in a fanzine. If the latter, we're in better shape. I am out of time for the evening but tomorrow or Monday will see if I can sort this one out, and will add the info about the Clarke story too. Thanks for finding this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's Carnell. If you read the chapter it's in a series of paragraphs about his editorials at New Worlds (in this case it being in issue 10). That's not super-clear from the screengrab, haha. Sorry. Protonk (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Classic Era of American Pulp Magazines by Peter Haining (2001) ISBN1556523890
A note on page 174 about the magazine (only available in snippet view for me)
Same here; can't see if it says anything we don't already have. The top Amazon review for it says it's riddled with errors, and has no research, just opinions. I think I'll leave this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And now we wait... :) Protonk (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
