Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 [1].

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated many articles about magazines full of bad writing, but this is a magazine I can actually recommend. F&SF (as it is universally known) is a survivor from 1949, and from the start has been one of the most important magazines in science fiction and fantasy, though it's been decades since magazine publishing was the most important market in the genre. It's always had a focus on quality writing over sensationalism, and has maintained its high reputation up to the present day. Sadly, all the covers are in copyright, so I've only been able to include one image, of the first issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"when he left Joseph Ferman": garden path. The sentence is a bit long.
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. I've tweaked that sentence; does that fix it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Fsffall49.jpg: should only include the latter fair-use tag, and suggest expanding purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the first tag; is that what you meant? Not sure what to say for the purpose -- it's to illustrate the magazine's appearance, and I don't discuss the cover at all. Perhaps that's an indication that I should be using a different image, for a cover that is mentioned in the article? Or is the justification for using the first issue stronger, just because it's the first issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main purpose of having a cover image in the lead is for visual identification - what cover do you think would best serve that purpose? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found one I think works better and substituted it. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, a couple more images have now been added; would you mind taking another look? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All current images look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bruce1ee

Lead

Shouldn't Ashley's quote at the end of the 1st paragraph be cited? WP:LEADCITE suggests that "direct quotations [in the lead] should be supported by an inline citation."
Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

Shouldn't the issue data table be directly under the Publication history section header? It covers the period 1949–2017, not just Lawrence Spivak's tenure.
I had some trouble with text flow when I tried that, but you're right it makes no sense there. I moved it to the right of the page instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic details

The stream of issue price changes in this section is quite a mouthfull to digest. Can't it be tabularized, something like the issue data table further up?
Done -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better; I tweaked the table header here to match the Anthologies table below – I hope that's ok. —Bruce1ee^talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General

The use of the possessive apostrophe is inconsistent, for example, Brian Aldiss's "Hothouse" and Mills' tenure.
Well spotted. Fixed for several, but I believe the rule is that a voiced s at the end (i.e. a z sound) doesn't get the extra s after the apostrophe, so I didn't add an s after Mills. I'm not certain of the rule, though, so if you know better, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's right, but have a look at MOS:POSS – that covers the topic in detail. —Bruce1ee^talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it's looking good. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the prose and MOS. Thanks for your fixes and your ongoing work on SF & F magazines. —Bruce1ee^talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure; and thanks for the support -- and the link to WP:POSS, which appears to say my approach is OK. Still a few more magazines to go, though I think the major ones are almost all done now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Commentsfrom RL0919

I made a few copy edits, and just have a few comments:

Would be helpful to add alt text for the images.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "taboo-breaking" is given in quotes -- is this a quote from the source cited at the end of the sentence?
No, it was an attempt to summarize the discussion there; the magazine tried to include stories with more sex than was common in the genre at the time. On looking at it again I'm not sure I can justify "taboo-breaking", as there had been some other stories about sex up to that point, but I decided to just cut that half of the sentence. It's about Venture, not about F&SF, and the reader doesn't need the background to understand the point, which is that Boucher couldn't take on the extra work of another magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the limited availability of images, I see there are a couple of photos of Gordon Van Gelder on Commons. Perhaps one of those would be relevant.
Thanks for pointing that out; no idea why I didn't think to look. I found one of Spivak too, but nothing for the other editors, sadly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looking quite good. --RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; happy to support. RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

Hi Mike (and Andy/Sarastro), I started a copyedit/review a while ago but have been waylaid, I expect to finish this w/e and can also do the source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing coord duties (of course), I've finished copyediting all but Overseas editions, which I know has been revised since the nom opened and can probably survive without me... ;-) Pls let me know any concerns with my edits; outstanding points/queries:

We note that Starship Troopers "proved to be one of Heinlein's most controversial books" -- it's also one of his most popular, does this source happen to mention that too?
I can't quickly find a cite for its popularity -- the source doesn't say it was popular, nor does the SFE3 entry on Heinlein. I do mention the Hugo that it won, which points in that direction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Tiptree contributing some of her finest stories" -- I realise "finest" would be via the source but wonder if it might also support something that doesn't sound quite so opinionated, e.g. "best-known" or some such.
Changed to "best-known". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under Bibliographic details (bullet points and table), WP style guidelines might suggest "Late 1949" or at least the more generic "Autumn 1949", but OTOH "Fall 1949" probably reflects the exact terminology on the cover, so I just put it out there for your consideration; not a show-stopper for me...
Sorry, not clear on the issue here -- yes, "Fall 1949" is the cover date for the first issue. The date ranges I give are not the calendar dates during which the editors held the post; they're the cover dates of the issues for which they're responsible. Perhaps if I changed the heading to "As of March 2017, the issues for which each editor was responsible are as follows"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, the point was that we should generally avoid using seasons to denote times of the year but if -- as you confirm -- it's the cover "date" for the first issue then it's probably fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might check over Holdstock's encyclopedia for any worthwhile tidbits when I do the source review later but this looks very comprehensive though not overly detailed -- well done as usual.
- Mike, Holdstock's encyclopedia highlights Mel Hunter's idiosyncratic "robot" series of illustrations in F&SF -- worth a mention alongside Bonestell, Freas and Emsh?
  Good find; I added a sentence, and it gave me an excuse to include another cover. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  An opportunist after my own heart... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In the same work, Christopher Priest describes F&SF as "a sort of New Wave of its own ever since its inception", which might work in the Assessment section here.
  I read what he says; it would fit in the first paragraph of the "Edward Ferman" section. I think he's largely echoing what Ashley says, though, even to the point of picking out Zelazny as someone who appeared in both F&SF and the British magazines. Do you think there's something in what Priest says that's not adequately covered in the current text? It's earlier than Ashley's comments, and it would give a different source (nice to use someone other Ashley where possible), I suppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, yes, I think it'd be fair to give space to someone other than Ashley (invaluable though Ashley is) and especially to a reasonably well-known author -- plus I found Priest's words kinda snappy. I mean I'm not sure that we need suppress one for the other (unless I've missed the bit you're referring to) but will leave to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Done; I added a bit to assessment, and a bit to the discussion of the New Wave in the section on Edward Ferman. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Tks mate, the only thing I could suggest is that because Priest's words are from many years ago it might be better to use past tense (i.e."agreed", "added") but again will leave to you -- very happy to support; another fine achievement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Reworded -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Added a word but apart from that, all good I think -- tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and the copyedit is appreciated as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, will aim to get onto the source review in a day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

Support just a few suggestions.

"but the decision was quickly taken" I would say "made" for "taken". Sounds more US.
"The magazine was quite different in presentation from the existing science fiction magazines of the day" Given the number of times you use the word "magazine" in this paragraph, I would change "The Magazine" to "F&SF".
"Boucher bought "A Canticle for Leibowitz" from Walter M. Miller, who had been unable to sell it elsewhere, and printed it in the April 1955 issue; it was the first in that series," Are we talking about a short story (as the lack of italics might argue) or the novel? A link might be helpful. Was there a series of short stories that became the novel?
"It remained eclectic over the 1960s and 1970s" I would say "through", not "over".
"Ashley describes it as bridging "the attitude gap between the slick magazines and the pulps"'; and argues that it made the genre more respectable." That shouldn't be a semicolon.

Very well done and engaging. I often read it in the 1980s.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. I've made all the changes you suggest; I linked to A Canticle for Leibowitz, which is about the novel, but the publication history gives the details; as you guessed, it was originally a series of short stories and became a fixup novel. I had avoided linking it because it's not immediately obvious from the linked article that the novel is not directly what I'm talking about. Perhaps it would be better to link to the publication details section; what do you think? Or perhaps clarify in the text, or in a note? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly something like " 'A Canticle for Liebowitz", the first story in the series that would become the novel of the same name".? I leave it in your discretion.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ian

www.sf-hefte.de is a new one for me and I don't trust my German, so could you take me through how we established reliability?
This was added a few days ago by an IP; there's a discussion on the article talk page. Looking through that I see I took them at their word when they said it was reliable -- I thought it was a page by the publisher, but per Google Translate it appears to be someone's personal page. I'm pretty sure this is not going to be reliable. I don't think one can ping IPs, but I'll leave a note on the talk page and do some more research and see what's salvageable. It's mostly non-controversial (how long did the German series last, and what were the titles) and I can get some, but not all, of it from the ISFDB. I'll report back here in a couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now removed. The only thing I lost was the exact number of that edition under each title; the ISFDB will eventually add those covers, and then I can re-add the information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worth adding OCLCs for the book refs missing ISBNs?
Will do, probably tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, except for the Kingsley Amis. I can find other editions of this on Worldcat, but not the Ballantine edition. Is it acceptable to use an OCLC for a different edition? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure about that -- maybe just leave, I don't think it's a showstopper. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You use "Westport, Connecticut" but "Middletown, CT" -- aside from consistency I think it's best to spell out states, provinces, etc.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"de Camp" and "del Rey" but "De Larber"? Unless the latter's is always rendered with the capital...
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FN53 -- Weinberg (1988) but looks like it should be 1985?
Actually the mistake was the other way round; I've fixed the other cites to say 1988. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a sourcing thing but in the same general area of the article -- I know we sometimes editorialise a bit in footnotes but do we really need "approvingly" in #5?
I think I was trying to add Aldiss & Wingrove's weight to the comment, but there's no need to do so, so I cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else leapt out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Minor point, but the location of the notes is not consistent. Some come before the accompanying footnote, some come after. Not worth holding up promotion, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.