Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagination (magazine)

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 00:15, 28 January 2008.

---

Imagination (magazine)

Check external links

An 1950s US science fiction magazine. The most similar existing FAs are Beyond Fantasy Fiction and Fantastic Universe, both of which are US magazines, and Authentic Science Fiction, a British sf magazine of the same era. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - My concerns - listed at the earlier nomination - have been addressed. This is another excellent article by our resident SF pulp/Anglo-Saxon king expert. :) Awadewit | talk 01:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per old nom. --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not opposing, but pity my first sample of the prose was this:

The volume number was incremented at the start of a calendar year, regardless of the number of issues, with volume one, 1950, having only two issues; subsequent volumes varied from five to twelve issues depending on the magazine's frequency of publication. Unusually, the overall issue number was also printed on the spine, along with the volume numbering.

Is this better?

The volume number rose by one at the start of each calendar year, regardless of the number of issues. Volume One, 1950, contained only two issues; subsequent volumes contained five to twelve issues, depending on frequency of publication. The overall issue number was printed on the spine, an unusual practice, along with the volume number.

Did they not use arabic numerals (Volume 1, Vol. 1)? What was actually on the spines? I used "contained" assuming your angle here is the physical volume; otherwise, "consisted of". Tony (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking the fifth issue as an example, the spine actually says "VOL 2 NO. 3" and "ISSUE NO. 5". I was avoiding using numerals since I was under the impression that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Spelling_out_numbers meant I should do so. I can see why "Volume 1, 1950", might be different, but I wasn't sure; I've made that change assuming that the MOS doesn't really cover this case. Re "contained"/"consisted of": it should be "consisted of", since the physical volume isn't of interest -- it's just a bibliographic record. I think the parenthetical commas in your suggested rewrite of the last sentence are better as parentheses: I've changed to your version with that one modification. Mike Christie (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - per old nom. -BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.