Talk:Amazing Stories/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I am reviewing this article and will report shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section
I picked up these points from the lead. You may want to address them as I go through the rest of the article.
 * Lead
 * "pulp fiction "should be linked (I note the pulp magazine link in the Origin section, but the link should be here]]
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest "continued under Sloane’s editorship until the late 30s" is a better form. "Continued until the late 30s..." sounds as though it didn't continue after then.
 * I've switched to your version, though I'm not sure it completely eliminates the ambiguity. I'll mull this over some more, but for the moment I've made the change. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "digest format" should be linked, (digest size)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Undistinguished interlude" sounds very POV; it's not cited in the body of the article
 * Ashley says "During the mid-1950s one of the weakest magazines had been Amazing"; he marks the change as coming when Fairman left. You're right that it's not well-supported in the body; it just says that Browne (and subsequently Fairman) were not able to sustain a short high quality period in the early 1950s.  I don't think it's necessary to draw attention to a short-lived period like this in the lead, so I've changed it there; I may add a little more negative comment to the body. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The 1980s saw Amazing pass into the hands of TSR, a gaming company, and over the next twenty years attempts were intermittently made to reincarnate Amazing as a successful modern sf magazine." The repetition of Amazing is awkward; also, "and" is wrong, since the two parts of the sentence are not really related. (TSR only owned it for half the 20 years).
 * Reworded; let me know if it's fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Works fine Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an element of contradiction in first sentence of final lead para: "had an enormous impact" and "was rarely an influential magazine..." Sounds a bit odd - What was the nature of its enormous impact?
 * It founded the genre; it was the existence of Amazing that was so influential -- not the quality of the fiction it published. Damon Knight has a comment somewhere about it being a branch sticking in the river, from which an ever-widening V of genre publications has come.  I've reworded this section a bit, so let me know if it's clearer now.
 * Yes, works well. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Later sections
Further prose comments
 * Origin
 * Example needed for upmarket "slick" magazines
 * Added, with a source. I only have an electronic copy of the Nicholls Encyclopedia with me; I can't add the page number till this weekend when I get back to Texas. Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Final sentence) There’s no call for a "thus" here (Sloane’s appointment wasn’t the inevitable result of closing one magazine and starting another)
 * Fair enough; cut. Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Publication history –early years
 * "manoeuvred" is Brit spelling. Assume Brit spelling throughout?
 * No, I think it should be US spelling, given the topic. I fixed this. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "deep pockets" encyclopaedic?
 * I'd say it's OK. The underlying reference says "Amazing fell into the comparatively wealthy lap of".  I could change it to just "wealth", if you think that would be better. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I like "deep pockets" - just wondered whether, with your wider experience, you were sure it was OK. Let's leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "probably to little more than 25,000" seems strangely uncertain and vague, and at odds with the otherwise sure-footed presentation of the facts. Is it possible to be more precise – or less vague?
 * I cut "probably"; the reference supports the more definite statement. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1940s
 * Howard Browne previously linked. Also, on "leave of absence" from what?
 * Clarified and unlinked. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Pocketbook" requires link or explanation
 * According to the WP article on paperback, "pocketbook" is a US synonym for paperback, but I think it's better if I just use the more universal term. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1950s
 * "...became more involved with the magazine once again" is a bit ponderous. Alternatively, "...revived his involvement with the magazine."
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1960s
 * "Goldsmith was an innovative editor..." I realise that there is a later section on Goldsmith, but would it be possible to mention here one of her innovations? Otherwise we have it that she was an innovative editor, but that circulation lagged, which rather suggesta a failed innovator
 * In some ways she was a failed innovator; though you could argue that the failure was due to the decay of the magazine market. Since the current organization of the article has publishing details in the first main section, and contents and reception in the next, I just cut the note about her being innovative; I think giving context for it is too hard to do concisely at this point in the article.  I'll add another comment below under your point about the second half being more engaging. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the rest
 * 1970s
 * "slushpile" is jargon
 * Changed to "manuscripts"; I was going to make it "unsolicited manuscripts", which is technically what they read, but I think it's OK this way. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gernsback’s Amazing
 * It’s a long time since Frank R Paul was mentioned, and I suggest that he be properly reintroduced, rather simply as “Paul”
 * I made it "Frank R. Paul"; is more needed? Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd probably say "illustrator Frank R Paul", but I'm not insistent. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "installment" is US spelling
 * OK -- should be US spelling per above comment. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sloane, Palmer etc
 * End of second sentence – is "market" the right word here? They didn’t defect to a better-paying market, but to a better-paying element within the market.
 * This is standard usage for writers: see here for example, where Speculations, for example, is said to focus on "paying markets". Is it too confusing for someone not familiar with the usage? I could make it something like "when Astounding was launched in January 1930, with better rates and faster editorial response, some of Sloane's writers quickly defected." Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would clarify it for me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "His instructions to one writer, Don Wilcox, 'Gimme Bang-Bang'..." I got this eventually, but I think it needs a "to" after Wilcox, for clarity.
 * Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * After Ted White
 * Para 4 – I can’t detect the contrast
 * Nor can I. I think something's wrong with the Gunn quote; I can't fix that till Friday or Saturday, I'm afraid, since I don't have that reference here.  I'll look this weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Publishing history.
 * Why is the first section, Editors, in bullet-point format, while the subsequent ones are in tables?
 * No particular reason. Do you think it would look better in a table?  I suppose I could argue for the bullets as variety, but it wasn't the intent, it just seemed a natural way to list them.  I guess I would also say that the explanatory notes are more suited to a bullet list as they are only necessary for a few editors and would lead to a lot of blank space in the table.  Plus it's adjacent to the graphic, and would get crushed, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, leave. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The graphic, while pretty, is somewhat confusing, and the caption (80 words) is surely contrary to WP:CAP?
 * Um, yeah, can't argue with that. I've cut it down somewhat. I could also cut the note about "Winter" and "Spring" and so on; is it self-evident from the table?  As for it being confusing, do you mean inherently confusing or is it poorly presented?  I could eliminate the volume numbering from the table, so it's just colour coding for the editors and dates, but I hate to drop information.  Plus then I'd have to put the volume numbering info in the text, which would be quite tedious.  What do you find confusing about it? Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In its unforced size it rather resembles psychedelic wallpaper, with the detail too small to be interpreted even with the help of the caption. When I enlarged it I lost the explanatory caption, and had to go back and memorise it before enlarging again. Then, I found that with the aid of a magnifying glass and a bright light I could just about make out some dates and figures, and it started to make sense. But it was a struggle. I can understand your wish to retain such an attractive and potentially informative visual, but I wonder about its actual utility when the figures are so small. Could you get another opinion on this? Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m sure that these issues can be dealt with quite quickly. As a general comment, I found the second part of the article rather more engaging than the first, where I found the record of constant changes of publisher and editor a little difficult to follow, and somewhat unvaried. I am not much of a science fiction reader myself, but I recognised some of the names, and it was interesting to see how they got started.
 * Yes, I think your reaction is probably going to be a common one. The publishing minutiae just aren't very interesting unless you're deeply interested in magazine history; the contents and reception material is more interesting to most people.  The alternative would be to make the article straightforwardly historical, mixing publishing history and reception in each period.  My feeling is that this approach is better: a reader who cares about the publishing details knows where to look; readers who don't can skip it.  I'm open to suggestions for improvements, though! Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine was more a passing comment than a request for action. I don't think any action is needed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for you responses before proceeding. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, there are a few outstanding issues, but nothing in my view that prevents its promotion to GA, which I will now fix. I am sure that you will continue to work on the article, and perhaps I will meet it again further down the line. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a thorough and thoughtful review! Much appreciated.  I have tweaked a couple of remaining things and will follow up on the two or three outstanding points.  Yes, I hope to take it to FAC; I think I will let it lie fallow for a bit and run through the prose again, as well as trying to figure out what to do about that gigantic image.  Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)