Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fantastic (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 SandyGeorgia 00:24, 17 January 2011 [1].

Fantastic (magazine)

edit

Fantastic (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic was probably the only magazine launched as a result of the Korean War. The war caused Ziff-Davis to cancel a proposed relaunch of Amazing Stories, and the plans were reformulated a couple of years later to launch a quality fantasy magazine. It lasted for twenty-eight years, making it one of the more durable science fiction and fantasy magazines, and was instrumental in popularizing the sword and sorcery genre. Other FAs that may be interesting for comparison include Galaxy Science Fiction and If. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by comment: Concerning File:Fantastic fonts.jpg; yes, the various logos have to be considered PD, but the backgrounds do not (and the backgrounds are somewhat distracting). Could the logos be separated from the backgrounds? J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that it's possible to subtract background though I don't have the skills; I could probably ask the graphics workshop to do this. However, I think the only one where there's a significant amount of the image visible is the first one, and that image is in fact public domain as copyright was not renewed -- the whole page is an image earlier in the article. So I think PD is OK here. As for distraction -- well, maybe, but surely the logo should be seen as it was displayed? Cutting it down to a yellow strip around the logo wouldn't show how it actually appeared to a reader, so wouldn't that be less faithful a representation? Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean, but it's easier to compare the logos to one another when it's just the logo that can be seen- we typically "isolate" the logos when we display them, it just looks a lot neater (and yeah, a quick request at the GL would probably be all it takes- I've found it to be very useful in the past). J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll post a request. I see the point about looking at logos independently of their background, but I'm not convinced it will be as informative to the reader as a view that includes the background. We can see what it looks like and then decide. One thing, before I post the request: how would you propose we handle the ancillary text, such as "STORIES OF IMAGINATION" and "Science Fiction & Fantasy STORIES"? This is part of the overall title -- should it be left in place? Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say so, yeah. J Milburn (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, posted. Please add any comments to the request if you think more clarification for the graphist would help. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look here -- I'd like to know what you think. I think the graphist did a reasonable job, but I'm not entirely convinced this is better than leaving the original backgrounds in place -- it does directly show the fonts, but to someone who, like me, is used to holding the magazines in their hands to examine them, this seems oddly disembodied and doesn't give a feel for the magazines themselves. Shall we wait and see what other FAC commenters think, and see if a consensus develops in one direction or the other? Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be unconvinced that the 1st, 3rd and 7th logos are simple generic fonts Fasach Nua (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the article talk page I noted the years that are copyrighted; they are Jun - Dec 54, all of 55, Feb 56, all of 68, and all of 72-78. The months shown in the logo image are Summer 1952, September–October 1953, January 1961, January 1964, June 1971, October 1978, and April 1979, so only the sixth image is still under copyright. Given that, do you see any problem with this image? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this magazine was not a US publication, creative lettering could be of copyright concern. However, US law does not grant copyrights to typefaces as long as the intent is for text (if the letter has artwork within, then the art could be copyrighted and should be removed, leaving the outline of the letter). Jappalang (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The file has now been updated by Jappalang to a logo-only version. I commented above that to someone familiar with the magazines this looks a little disembodied, and I think on balance I would prefer the original version. However, I propose to leave it as is and see if other commenters on this FAC express an opinion. I don't believe copyright is an issue here; it's just a question of presentation and benefit to the reader. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support I did a small copy-edit, but there wasn't much that needed to be fixed. The article is well written, and all media has proper licenses. I think the use of colours in the tables might be a accessibility problem. Could this be fixed in some way?

Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. WP:COLOUR

Appart from this it is a very good article, and I'm more then willing to support. (Note: I have not checked the sources). P. S. Burton (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. The only information provided by the colours in those charts is the date on which each editor took over; that information is repeated in a section at the end of the article, here. I hope that's sufficient -- it would be a pity to remove the colours from the images, as I think it's a concise visual representation of the editorships. I could add the information to the captions, but that would make them rather long, so I'd like to just leave it with the list at the end of the article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine by me, unless someone else disagrees. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: No problems with the sources or citations, except that the ISBN for Kyle (1977) should be given. According to Abebooks this is 0-600-38193-5. Verification spotchecks not possible. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added; yes, that's the right ISBN. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks strong, as I'd expect. I haven't had the chance to read through it carefully (I look forward to doing so), but I do see that there's a problem with those beautifully designed issue data tables:

  • Table 1's caption asserts that it describes the 1950s, but in fact the table describes 1952–1960
  • Table 2's caption asserts that it describes the 1960s, but in fact the table describes 1961–1970
  • Table 3's caption asserts that it describes the 1970s, but in fact the table describes 1971–1980

I would suggest moving the 1960 data to table 2, the 1970 data to table 3, and rewording the caption of table 3 to begin "Issues of Fantastic in the 1970s and 1980".—DCGeist (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you're right, of course, but the current tables have the advantage of almost even distribution of the year-data among the three tables, which helps maximize the font size for a given width of table. How about changing the captions instead, to say "Issues of Fantastic through 1960", "from 1961 to 1970", and "from 1971 to 1980" instead? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems fine.—DCGeist (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • Should "sf" not be capitalized as "SF" and explained in full on the first instance per the MOS; i.e. "science fiction (SF)"? Books about science fiction seems to imply the capitalized term.
    This is a matter of preference, I feel. The most important reference in the field, the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, uses "sf" throughout. Their entry on the abbreviation says "In this volume -- as often elsewhere -- it is rendered in lower-case letters." There's no doubt that "SF" is acceptable, but I think the lower-case version is more visually pleasing when it is sprinkled liberally through an article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Jappalang (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The field rapidly expanded, with several new titles appearing over the next few years, including Fantastic Adventures, launched by Ziff-Davis in 1939 as a companion to Amazing."
    The sentence seems to stutter a bit to me.
    Suggestion: "The field rapidly expanded; several new titles appeared over the next few years, including Fantastic Adventures, which was launched by Ziff-Davis in 1939 as a companion to Amazing."
    Yes, that's better; I've made the change. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malzberg's firing seems somewhat controversial... was there no other issue that resulted from it (e.g. court case, breakdown in relationships within the industry, etc)?
    There may have been, but Ashley doesn't give more details in the sources. I've corresponded briefly with Ashley over this, and he says that the primary source material for all of this is the SFWA journal, known as the SFWA Bulletin, for the period in question. I don't have access to these, but they no doubt carry correspondence from the players in this episode; those would be primary sources though, so I would be a bit wary of relying on those. I also haven't found anything about it in material on Malzberg, though I've less info on him. So I think this is all that there is to be had from secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, if anyone knows any reliable sources for details about this, they can bring it up for inclusion. Jappalang (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, White sometimes found himself at odds with Cohen's business partner, Arthur Bernhard, whose political views were very different from White's. White proposed a full-size slick magazine to Cohen; when Cohen refused, White resigned."
    There seems to be a lot of "White"s and I think the flow could be improved.
    Suggestion: "White sometimes found himself at odds with Cohen's business partner, Arthur Bernhard, due to their different political views. White's grouses with his working conditions culminated in his resignation after Cohen refused his proposal to publish Fantastic as a full-size slick magazine."
    I used a slight modification of your version; I think "grouse" is a little informal, so I went with "complaint". Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a "full-size slick magazine"?
    A magazine the size of Time, or Life, with slick paper (good for publishing colour advertisements) and hence much higher production costs. Pulps were called that because of the cheap wood pulp paper they used; digests (such as Fantastic) generally used cheap paper too, though to some degree they managed to avoid the stigma associated with the pulp size. Higher circulation was needed to support the slicks' production costs. The implication of the phrase is that White wanted to spend money to try to move the magazine upmarket. Unfortunately Wikipedia has no article about the concept of slick magazines, though the phrase is common on magazine histories (as you can see from Google Books). Would a redlink be worth it here? Or is more explanation inline needed? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think inline explaining would work and took the bold step of inserting one in; please edit it if it is erroneous or can be phrased better. Jappalang (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked; I hope that's OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "White wanted to introduce artists who had made their name in the comic-book field rather than in sf, such as Jeff Jones, Vaughn Bodé, and Steve Hickman, but as with the fiction was hampered by an inventory of cheap material that he had to use up—in this case, artwork that had been acquired from European magazines that he had to use for cover paintings."
    Quite a lot of "that"s here in this single sentence.
    Suggestion: "White wanted to introduce established artists from outside the sf field, such as Jeff Jones, Vaughn Bodé, and Steve Hickman; however, the company was saddled with cheap artwork acquired from European magazines to be used for the cover and he was instructed to make use of them."
    That's definitely smoother; I hesitated because your version drops the mention of comic-books, which is where White was looking for these artists, but I don't think that's a critical detail, so I made the change. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Jappalang (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the article does a good job in presenting a comprehensive history of this sci-fi magazine. There are a few spots of rough language in my view (my language skills suffer from its own flaws...), but overall, the article gets its points across to me quite clearly. Jappalang (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just a few quibbles

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (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/Fantastic_(magazine)/archive1&oldid=408303225"