Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Startling Stories/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 Laser brain 16:55, 8 February 2011 [1].

---

Startling Stories

Startling Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Startling Stories/archive1

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would a woman wear a swimsuit in space? Why would she wear underwear made of brass at any time? Why are women so likely to be threatened by hideous aliens? This article may not answer those questions, but it will certainly make you want to ask them. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: (and sorry, I do make comments other than just image niggles...) If we have free images of the covers, we really shouldn't lead with a non-free cover. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed; that was uploaded by someone else who didn't check copyright and didn't realize it was free. I've corrected the licensing, so I think we're OK. And image niggles are fine! I'm not an image expert so I'm glad to have expert reviewers. (Other comments are welcome too, of course ...) Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My review

• "...these early stories were reprinted in Startling as "Hall of Fame" stories." Is there some way to rephrase this to avoid saying the word "stories" twice in the same sentence?

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "...separately-marketed..." Adverbs ending in "ly" are never hyphenated.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "By the end of the 1930s the field was undergoing its first boom," Shouldn't this end in a period rather than a comma?

  Another copyeditor got to this before I did. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "...and was replaced by Sam Merwin, Jr. from the Winter 1945 issue." Does this mean that he was replaced by someone who worked on the Winter 1945 issue, or replaced by someone at the time of, and onward from, the publication of the Winter 1945 issue? Could be clarified a bit.

  Also fixed by someone else -- let me know if the new version is OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "...contributed to decisions to cancel magazines." could be clarified a little, perhaps "publishers' decisions"?

  Yes, that's an improvement; done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "though the story was not one of his best, it was excellent publicity." perhaps mention who or what the object of the publicity is. Presumably it's the magazine, but it could also be read as publicity for the tribute's writer.

  It was for the magazine; clarified. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "fanzine" isn't a common term, maybe a link to fanzine?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe link "déshabillé" to something? It's in a quote so you can't really rephrase it, but it's not exactly in the vernacular.

  Linking in quotes is frowned on, so I'm a bit stuck here. I'm not sure there's much I can do; I could drop that part of the quote, but by golly there are plenty of illustrations of what he means, so perhaps the reader will be able to infer it. Can we wait and see if other reviewers comment on this? Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Same with "juvenilia" and "redolent". My rule of thumb is that if my browser's spell checker doesn't know what it is, neither will the average reader.

  I'll have a look this evening and see if it's OK to link to Wiktionary, but my preference would be not to -- if a word needs an explanation it shouldn't be there, or it should be explained parenthetically. I take your point about readability, and I think the spell checker rule of thumb is reasonable, but I would have thought these words are both in the passive vocabulary of most readers. Let me think about this one and get back to you. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I looked at the MoS and I see that wiktionary links are OK; in fact someone's already added one to "aficionado". If you feel it's necessary I'll add links here, but my own feeling is that they are a bad idea -- if the language is genuinely obscure it should be clarified; if not, a wiktionary link is unnecessary. Let me know whether you feel they should be added, or if you think a rephrasing is in order. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  That's fine. There's a difference between making an article approachable and dumbing it down. If you had an article comparing microprocessor instruction sets or about a method for synthesizing amino acids, and it was full of jargon, that's a problem. If a reader can't understand these few words, they can probably pick it up from the context.

• You seem to be uses quotes and italics interchangeably for both story and publication names. Early in the article, all stories are in quotes and all publications are italicized, but by the Merwin section, stories like "What Mad Universe" are in italics rather than quotes. Please keep the style consistent.

  The intention is italics for novels, and quotes for stories; it gets confusing because Startling published a lot of novels -- What Mad Universe was a novel. I will read through tonight (I have to head out to work now) and make sure everything's consistent, and will also clarify what's a novel and what isn't in the descriptions. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I took a look through and I think everything is OK -- I changed one description to make it clearer I was talking about novels; that may have been the source of the confusion, since the way I had it made it sound like a short story. Let me know if anything else looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Three different Canadian reprint edition..." should be editions, plural. Minor oversight.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe link Pine Publications to Thrilling Publications?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "edited by Leo Margulies and Oscar Friend.. This reprinted stories that had appeared in the "Hall of Fame" reprint section of the magazine." Two periods, and the beginning of the sentence is awkward.

  Rephrased; see if that does it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

--Gyrobo (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, I can't find any other issues with the prose. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Minor note: File:Startling issues grid.png would be better replaced with a table; actual text is preferred to text-based images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have used a table rather than an image for title variations; see Galaxy Science Fiction, for example. However, I've been unable to make the table of issues look as attractive as the images -- if you can show me how to fit it into the same space on the page as the images do, and be as readable, then sure. As it stands, all the information in the image is also elsewhere in the article, with the exception of the exact numbering of the volumes, which is fairly esoteric material. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Short citations to "Ashley, Time machines" and "Ashley, Transformations" are not identifiable with the three Ashley volumes listed under References.

  I just added Time Machines; Transformations is there, and I think is OK as it is -- do you see a problem with it or did you just miss it? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I missed it - sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise, citation 20 refers to Part 2 which is not identifiable.

  Should have been "Vol. 2"; fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Gammell does not appear to be a cited work

  I couldn't find the reference you mean -- can you point me at it? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  In the list of references: Gammell, Leon L. (1986). The Annotated Guide to Startling Stories. Mercer Island, WA: Starmont. ISBN 0-930261-51-X. No citations to this that I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK, I'd forgotten about that. It's a collection of reviews of the novels in Startling by someone without any particular pedigree as a critic -- sort of a personal memoir by a fan. I didn't use it in the article but included it as relevant in the bibliography; I suppose I really ought to separate it to "Further Reading"? Or maybe just cut it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I thought about it some more and decided to cut it; it's just a memoir and barely usable as a source, so I don't think there's a need to list it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All sources issues cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – In references 9 and 23, there's some funky formatting. The publisher= parameter of whatever cite template you're using is showing up. Even if you want an indication in the cites that the person was the publisher, it's already mentioned in parentheticals. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  Not sure how that happened, but it's fixed now. Thanks for spotting that. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - a quick, interesting and easy read. I have a few prose nit-picks that are in the first two paras:

• Second sentence in the lead - "was" is used too much: "It was founded ... was initiailly .... who was ... "

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• A few sentences down > repetition of acquired: "When the publisher acquired .... also acquired"

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Publication history: second and third sentences repetition of "its first".

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, a really nice job on a yet another pulp magazine. The references are fine & I'm useless with images. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review (and the support) -- let me know if the above tweaks have fixed the issues, and if you see anything else that needs changing. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment:I don't normally leave reviews, as I don't really think that I'm qualified to review FAs since I don't have any currently, but I would like to add something. It seems like the article has a lot of opinion in it, namely referring to the Science Fiction cover art as "cliched" several times. Unless that's some sort of jargon for classic sci-fi covers or something, it seems a little opinionated. Again, not an expert on the subject of the article or the practice of reviewing, so please feel free to ignore me if I'm out of line.-RHM22 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no qualifications for reviewing, and anyway I see you've just submitted a FAC, so please dive in. It's always great to get another reviewer on board. Yes, there is a fair amount of opinion, but I hope I've sourced it well enough to leave it in. The sources are pretty explicit about the fact that the covers were ludicrous; Ashley refers to Bergey's "ridiculous spacesuits", for example. Cliches do exist and when there is critical commentary about them, my feeling is the reader should see that commentary. Are there any particular instances that you are concerned about? If it would be useful, I could quote whatever my sources say that I'm using to support these points so we can see if the language I'm using is justified.

Re "sf" versus "science fiction", I have to say I prefer to abbreviate, since repeating "science fiction" over and over again can get a bit wearisome. It's standard practice in the secondary sources to do so. But I'm fine with it the way you have it; if someone comes along with another opinion we can discuss it at the talk page.

Thanks for fixing those typos, too.

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand why you went with "sf", but I just figured I'd change it. It really isn't important though, and I certainly have no reason for doing it except it seemed to look a little better. As for the commentary, I understand what you meant about the obvious silliness of the designs. Like I said, it was just an opinion, but one unusual use of opinion seemed to be under the image gallery. Of course it's totally appropriate when the opinions are quotes from someone. Either way, it's a very interesting article.-RHM22 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. An enjoyable and interesting read which meets the FA criteria. I will do an image review below and have a few quibbles (which do not detract from my support)

• In the Lead is there any reason not to link Against the Fall of Night? (I know it is linked in the lead image caption, but seems to me like it could be linked in both places)

  I didn't because of the link in the caption, but you're right, a link in the body is a good idea too. Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• In Publication history could "bedsheet-sized" be linked or explained in some way? It seems to me as if a true bedsheet would be a little big for a magazine ;-)

  Linked. This is hard to explain in line, so I hope a link will do. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think the link is fine, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the caption for the gallery of four covers, would Three of the four are by Earle Bergey. be better as something like All but the third cover are by Earle Bergey.?

  Yes, that's much better; changed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  The funny thing is I was pretty sure from style that the third cover was not his, before I checked the images. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, there's a definite difference there. Perhaps someone will write a scholarly paper on the importance of bra styles in the artwork of 1940s sf pulps, and then we'll have a reliable source for our intuition. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  I always thought Princess Leia's metal bikini in Return of the Jedi was probably a nod to the pulps and covers like these - plus she is chained to a giant slug-like alien who looks at her and licks his lips a lot. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Does Kuttner need to be linked twice in the body of the article - once in "War years" and once in "Merwin and after"?

  No; that's an oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library)

• Should Note 2 be repeated somewhere in the first part of Bibliographic details (since it notes the different editors according to different sources)?*:Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review - the article has seven images, of which six are free since their copyrights expired and were not renewed. The seventh, File:Startling Stories 1953 May cover.jpg, shows changes to both the title logo and art, specifically the new style of less lurid cover art, both of which are discussed in some detail in the article. I find that the use of this one copyrighted image here meets the fair use criteria under WP:NFCC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome, thanks for the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• Coren's tool found no copyvio, Earwig's turned up a couple of obvious mirrors. No spotchecking done due to lack of source access
• A couple of doubled periods in References

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether second author/editor is listed first name or last name first. Incidentally, do you alternate between Mike and Michael Ashley because of source use?

  I think this is fixed now. Yes, the sources vary on this; makes me go cross-eyed trying to keep them straight. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why in References is Ashley "Vol. 3" but Tuck "Volume 3"?

  That's how the title pages of the two books read. I could expand "Vol." to "Volume" but it really does say "Vol." in the source. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Asimov in in Footnotes but not References; Ashley Vol.3 is in References but not Footnotes

  Good catches; thanks. The Ashley isn't used, so I cut it; the Asimov is now in References. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Where is "West"?

  I don't know what happened there, but it's fixed; it was "Westport CN" before it somehow got truncated.

• Page numbers for Mines (x2)?

  Fixed by substituting another ref which covers both editions. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Opening sentence is a bit on the long side. There are a few other long sentences, and some slight overuse of commas

  I fixed the opening sentence -- a previous review objected to three uses of "was" in a row, so I've now tried to find a middle ground. I will have another read for commas and length of sentences, but if you see anything else, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• "its predecessor, Wonder Stories" - is this the predecessor to Standard Magazines, Startling Stories, or Thrilling Wonder?

  Wonder Stories was retitled Thrilling Wonder Stories when Standard Magazines acquired it; I've clarified this, though I'm afraid the clarification is a bit clunky -- let me know if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is it Thrilling Wonder or Thrilling Wonder Stories?

  The title is Thrilling Wonder Stories. I've followed the practice of most of the sources in using an abbreviated form of the title when it is used repeatedly. Is this confusing? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Probably need to explain pulp vs bedsheet size

  "Pulp" was already linked; I've now linked "bedsheet-size" to bedsheet. I hope this is enough; as I commented in the review above, it's a hard difference to describe in a quick parenthesis. I could put it in a note if that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• "science fiction historian Mike Ashley" is needed only on the first appearance of his name; you can use "Mike Ashley" or "Ashley" for subsequent mentions. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support in its current version. A fascinating look at this pulp magazine.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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