Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super-Science Fiction/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [1].

Super-Science Fiction[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a minor magazine from the late 1950s. It wouldn't have had enough meat on the bones to get further than GA if it weren't that Robert Silverberg, a well-known sf writer, reminisced about it in the introduction to one of his collections of stories. It's short, but I think it's complete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ian[edit]

Good to see you back with another sf mag, Mike. Recusing coord duties, I've lightly copyedited and have the following suggestions:

  • The Comics Code, introduced in 1954, forced Feature to stop publication of all three titles by late 1956 -- although not strictly germane to this story, it'd be interesting to briefly hear the grounds for the Code's decision re. what now appear to be quite innocuous titles.
    There's nothing specific about those titles in Ashley -- he just says, for example, that "Frankenstein Comics was wound up under the Comic Code in 1954". Our article on Frankenstein Comics similarly just says the Comics Code led to its demise. If you look at the criteria, it seems pretty straightforward that a horror comic about Frankenstein's monster would have a hard time meeting the code, but I don't think I can say anything specific in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott paid two cents a word for both fiction and non-fiction, a rate that made the magazine competitive with the other major titles in the field -- does the source mention any such titles that might be dropped in to give the reader context?
    Silverberg says "it was twice as much as what most of the science-fiction magazines we were selling to then would pay", but I know from other sources that two and sometimes three cents a word was available at the top end of the market (Galaxy, F&SF, Astounding). I don't think it would be OR to make the reference, but since Silverberg doesn't get specific I thought it wasn't necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the spring of that year Ellison took Scott some stories -- can we avoid the seasonal reference?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find infoboxes particularly useful or necessary in these magazine articles but happy to defer to main editor/s -- and of course consensus -- in these situations.
    I avoid them where they cover up ambiguities, but here the title, frequency, editor, and publisher are all constant, so I think it's harmless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- all refs impeccable, no surprises here; formatting-wise, the only thing I noticed was that the ISBN of Asimov's title could be consistent with the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how to do the split? I know it would start "978-0-..." but where would the hyphens go at the end? Your copyedits look fine, except that I changed "knowledgeable of the genre" back to "knowledgeable about the genre"; the former sounds quite odd to me. Perhaps an AusEng/BrEnd thing? And thanks for the review and support, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

  • Ian may have an opinion on this: what prevents Silverberg's reminiscences from being primary sources? Ie WP:PRIMARY states "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on" and "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
    Much of what Silverberg says is supported to a greater or lesser extent by Ashley. There are some points that rely specifically on Silverberg's recollections, such as the anecdote about the manuscript that had been rejected eighteen times, the wordage rate, the dates, and the mention of Harry Altshuler, but these don't seem controversial to me. Is there anything he's cited for that you think is dubious? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular issues in that respect, but if Silverberg is a primary source, then given that 21 of 47 cites are to Silverberg it seemed to teeter on the edge of breaking "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]." But going through in detail, you seem to have cannily kept on the right side of that. So false alarm.
  • Several sources which I would consider reliable state that SSF was published by Headline Publications, eg The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1979). (I understood Feature Publications, aka Crestwood Publications, to have predominately or exclusively published comic books.)
    Headline was an imprint of Feature -- this is mentioned in the article, and you can see Headline Comics listed in our article on them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that - but missed it! Apologies.
  • "In 1957 the liquidation of American News Company, a major distributor, meant that many magazines had to scramble to find new distributors. Independent distributors often required that the magazines be monthly, and that they be in a larger format than the digest-size common among science fiction magazines. The larger format required higher revenue to be profitable, but in many cases it proved impossible to attract the additional advertising income that would have kept the magazines afloat" Given that SSF had independent distribution, how is this information relevant?
    See next response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the surviving distributors often failed to cooperate with smaller publishers". Was the publisher of SSF "smaller? If so, why are we not told; if not, how is this relevant?
    I don't know how big Feature was, but per your previous point the discussion of the collapse of ANC didn't affect SSF directly. I did think about cutting the discussion of ANC, but it's a key part of the overall story -- there were something like 45 sf magazines published in 1953 and only 10 or so by the end of the decade. ANC wasn't the only reason for the collapse; the market had been over-saturated, and I doubt the monster movie craze, which might have brought new readers to the genre, was helpful in the longterm. So the intention was context -- "At the end of the 1950s lots of magazines died because of ANC, and more died for other reasons". Is this simply not worth including, or is it that I'm lacking a summary sentence to bring that point out? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that. I kinda knew everything you say anyway, and each sentence is individually fine. But by the end of the paragraph I was confused. (Admittedly I confuse easily, but still.) Starting the paragraph with "there were something like 45 sf magazines published in 1953 and only 10 or so by the end of the decade" might help. Maybe mention SSF a bit earlier in the paragraph? Maybe try to tie the points more to SSF? Even if only to say they didn't apply.
Yes, I think you're right that something needs to be done. I'll think about it and will post here when I have a rewritten version of the paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: I've now rewritten that paragraph to focus more on the market situation, using ANC as just an example of the disruption. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Yes, that works. IMO it pushes a bit at the boundary of "places the subject in context" and "without going into unnecessary detail"; but just about stays the right side. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather that SSF was published bi-monthly. I would be helpful if that were stated under "Publication history".
    I've added a brief "Bibliographic details" section to summarize this sort of information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Any chance of a citation? I would make it the first section not the last, but that's your call.
Oops; cited to Stableford's article in the original Encyclopedia of SF; I added Ashley to cover the fact that Headline was an imprint of Feature. I've typically made these sections last because they can go into some esoteric details which I don't think are of enough interest to place higher in the article; see Weird_Tales#Bibliographic_details for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the date of the last issue be given? "only three more issues appeared" leaves a reader counting on their fingers. And coming to the incorrect answer if they assume monthly publication.
    Also answered in the new section; is that OK or do you think I should put it in the text? I sometimes leave this sort of detail out if I think it's obvious from elsewhere, and the table does answer the question after all, so I've also moved the table up to the publication history section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works, especially moving the table up.
  • "producing work at high volume for the sf magazines" Is there a reason why "sf" is not written in full at first use per MOS:1STOCC?
    An oversight, but rather than fix it I've eliminated the abbreviation since it was only used a couple of times. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 25 gives Asimov (1980), which is not listed in the sources.
    Added; thanks for spotting that. It's a book club edition, and has no ISBN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat gives an ISBN and an OCLC.
I believe that's the original Doubleday edition, which is different, but I hadn't thought of including an OCLC and have now done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead : "the remainder, which generally comprised material rejected by other magazines first, was sent in by literary agents." I am not sure that this is fully supported by the text of the main article.
    Reworded to make it "much of the remainder", which I think is what the concern was? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was, cheers.
  • "though Silverberg considers the material he wrote for Scott and other action-adventure magazine publishers to have helped him learn his trade as a writer." While Silverberg was a/the major contributor, might it not be more appropriate to end the lead with a more general summary? Perhaps from Ashley?
    I tried making it "Silverberg considers the material he wrote for Scott and other action-adventure magazine publishers to have helped him learn his trade as a writer, but the magazine is not highly regarded by critics" but I don't like it that way round. As it stands the last sentence gives the critical opinion, followed by a qualification -- the point about Silverberg. The revised version would make the comment about Silverberg the main point, but the critics' opinion is not really a qualification of that so it reads oddly. I'd like to leave this as it is -- it does give the critical opinion in the last sentence; it's just that the qualifying clause is longer than the main clause.
Given how much Silverberg contributed, fair enough.

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note[edit]

Hi Mike, I have just been reading Silverberg's Collected Stories Vol 5 (1997). On page 13 he writes that he wrote 36 of SSF's total of 120 stories. He also directly links SSF's decline to the collapse of American News Company and comments on the going rates for stories. It seems to me worth trawling for information - unless you have already done so. If you don't have it I could scan and email you the relevant page. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd very much like to see it -- I'll send you a Wikipedia email to reply to. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just read through it. I think there's nothing I need to add to this article, though this would be a good source for the article on Silverberg himself. He talks about the influence of the disappearance of ANC on the market, but in the intro to Tales from SSF he makes it clear that SSF did not use ANC, so the general discussion of the impact on the market is all that's needed. Thanks for sending it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Just a couple of things
  • Language in the lede "couple of", feels a bit informal. Asimov's participation is probably lede-worthy.
    I've added a mention of Asimov to the lead. The trouble with "couple of years" is that the sources don't say just when Feature decided to make the change to a monster focus. The first monster issue had a cover date of April 1959 and was probably on newsstands in March, so given lead times in the industry it's practically certain that the decision was made in late 1958, but I can't really cite that to anything, so I've left it vague. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There have been no anthologies of stories from the magazine,[11] but in 2012 a collection of Robert Silverberg's stories, titled Tales from Super-Science Fiction, appeared, with an introduction in which Silverberg reminisced about his involvement with the magazine.[12]" This is somewhat ambiguous, whether it means that no stories from the magazine have been anthologized or there have been no anthologies consisting entirely of stories from this magazine. The Asimov stories have been anthologized.
    Changed to "no anthologies consisting solely of stories from the magazine". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Short but sweet.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support; let me know if you think "couple of" really needs to be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47[edit]

  • I support this article for promotion. You have done a wonderful job with the article. I only have two quick comments, but they are both nitpick-y and not major enough to hold off a support. My comments are below:

Again, great work with the article, and I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:06, 14 June 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/Super-Science_Fiction/archive1&oldid=962595615"