Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imaginative Tales/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 30 December 2020 [1].

Imaginative Tales[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s; all the significant magazines from the era are now FA, so we're down to the also-rans. I've dug up everything I can find on the magazine, including a minor anecdote about Hugh Hefner. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • How do you know that copyright was not renewed on the magazine?
    If you go here and click on the post-1978 link you can search for renewals. Searching for "Imaginative Tales" shows that some individual stories were renewed, but not the covers; searching for "Space Travel" and sorting by date shows that nothing was renewed from the three issues with that title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is wide enough and sandwiches with the infobox, it would probably display better with non-inline formatting. (t · c) buidhe 04:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The caption at the bottom of the table doesn't wrap, so you have to add carriage returns manually otherwise the table just gets wider and wider. Another user removed that carriage return not long before you looked at it, making the table unnecessarily wide. I've restored it, with a <br />, so it should be narrower now. Is that good enough? If not, rather than making it non-inline, I think I'd swap it with the second image, since that's narrower. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • External links: see WP:MOSSIS
    I assume the relevant point is not to have a section solely for the sister project link; if so, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref for launch date of Rogue? It's not in the text
    I've now cited this to the first issue of Rogue, though I have not seen it myself -- googling "December 1955 Rogue" finds examples for sale, so I think that's OK. I had to put in the cite by hand since there's no "title" parameter to use, and {{cite journal}} doesn't like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether Ashley short cites use date or title for disambiguation
    Oops. That's what I get for copying from other articles. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN15 should use displayed title. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Would it be possible somehow to link this part, American science fiction (sf) magazines, from the "Publication history" section to science fiction magazine since it is the first time it is mentioned in the article? I like that you put the acronym in parenthesis, and I would not want the link to disrupt that. Would something like science fiction (sf) magazine of science fiction (sf) magazine be possible or is that just more distracting? I think the parenthesis is more valuable than the link, but it was something I noticed when looking at the article, and I wanted to raise it to your attention.
    Done; it's linked in the lead but I usually link again in the body and I think this is worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the edit. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend including some ALT text for the images, but I do not think it is required. I know ALT text has been the subject of some debate, and as someone who does not use a screen reader or has a visual impairment, I cannot really comment either way on it.
    Done for the body image; is it required for the infobox? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if there is a hard-and-fast rule about it (or really ALT text in general for FA/FACs). I usually add it just to cover all of my bases, but I will leave that decision up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a link to fantasy comedy be helpful for the phrase, humorous fantasy, in the lead? I'm on the fence about it since the target article is not in great shape and I would not want to add too many links to the lead, but just wanted to get your opinion on it.
    Sure; one day someone will improve the article. I did it through the redirect for "humorous fantasy" since I think it's likely that will be the main name for the article one day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. And having an article linked to more and more places throughout Wikipedia will hopefully encourage more people to see and ideally improve it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, should Space Travel be in bold since it is another name for the magazine? I am only asking because the alternative names are bolded in Saturn (magazine).
    Yes, definitely; can't believe I missed that. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an easy thing to miss, especially since it seems that this title was not around for very long lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, In Hamling's announcement of the magazine, in an editorial in Imagination, would it work to say "as an editorial in" instead? I am just trying to think of a way to avoid having "In. . . in. . . " in the same sentence.
    I found another way to avoid it -- I think "as an editorial" wouldn't be a natural way to say it, but you're right that the repetition needs to be avoided. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I was struggling to think of a good alternative. Your wording is definitely better (and more correct lol) than mine. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the term paperback is used in the body of the article, I think it would be better to use that instead of pocketbook in the lead. It might just be me, but I more so associate pocketbook with a bag or purse (and then a very silly Jennifer Hudson song lol).
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this edit. I would be curious if pocketbook was some sort of regional/cultural difference or possibly something that just fell out of style. Either way, that is a tangent lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know any years for when Robinson suggested the Caravan title change or Hugh Hefner meeting? I was just curious because the timeline becomes a little murky for me, especially since the lead mentions the Space Travel name change before the Rogue parts, but the reverse happens in the article itself.
    It is definitely murky. Note 1 in the article points out the discrepancies in Robinson's account; I thought it was worth including anyway but I can't put a date in because Robinson doesn't give one, and per the note, some part of his recollection must be wrong anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I appreciate that you are direct in your note about him being mistaken. It could just be an instance of someone forgetting or mixing up the years that something happened. I have been guilty of that in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the article as always, and I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Most of them are just questions about potential improvements. I was drawn in by the cover in the lead lol. You do inspire me to one day work on an article about a magazine, as it is both a good and informative way to document this kind of history. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; you spotted some things I'm embarrassed to have missed! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help. That's the fun part of these FAC reviews, although I have definitely made much sillier mistakes than you lol. I support the nomination for promotion based on the prose. I am not too fussed on whether or not the infobox image has ALT text or not. I think it is nice to be consistent, but it is not a dealbreaker imo. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties, just a light copyedit from me -- not a big article but I think appropriate detail given the subject's relative obscurity and its coverage in the sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Four weeks in and only one support. I wouldn't want this to time out, but it seems to be heading that way. Perhaps you could see if you could call in some payback for all of the reviews you do? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK; I'll take my chances. I don't like to nag people for reviews, and maybe it's my turn to have a FAC archived for lack of reviews -- it's actually never happened to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well we wouldn't what to break a tradition. I'll add it to urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. Though I don't have a personal relationship with these old magazines, I very fondly remember an interview with Forrest J. Ackerman where he mentioned many of them in a Danish TV show. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the date for the first cover shown, how about the second one?
  • Link people mentioned in image captions?
  • "Debut issue of Imaginative Tales, September 1954" Shouldn't the title be in italics here?

Thanks; all done -- I was surprised to see Malcolm Smith already has an article; I was expecting that to be a red link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should the artist that made the over in the infobox be named in the caption (as you do with the other cover)?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Hamling pitched the idea of a competitor to Playboy instead" This sentence is a bit hard to follow, could have several different meanings when I read it. But after reading the intro, I understand the pitch was for a magazine that could be a competitor to Playboy. So perhaps get the word magazine in there?
    Good idea; I think readers not familiar with publishing might not pick up on this easily as I had it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The schedule was bimonthly and was completely regular." Is the second "was" needed?
    It could certainly be deleted, but I think this is just a stylistic choice; I like the rhythm this way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While at Ziff-Davis Hamling had become familiar" Comma before Hamling?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and short fiction soon begin to appear" Why present tense when the surrounding text is past?
    Ouch. Typo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "regular contributors to Amazing" Why not just spell it out as you do at all other mentions?
    The source doesn't give names; I could look up the regular writers for Amazing and see which ones also wrote for Imaginative Tales, but that seems OR to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant spell out Amazing Stories... FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a science fiction movie" Why go to the trouble if setting up the abbreviation "(sf)" when you don't use it here?
    Well, I use it to avoid overusing "science fiction", but I think varying it between the two is good. I went ahead and changed it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Greenleaf Publishing Company in the article body too?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done or responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (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/Imaginative_Tales/archive1&oldid=997306203"