Talk:Comet (magazine)

Introductory sentences in the body
I think everything from the GA review is now addressed except for the comment about the introductory sentences. I've used similar sentences to introduce articles on quite a few magazines, and rather than write a quick answer now I'd rather go and look at a few of the others and see if I've been consistent about how I've done it. I'll post tomorrow, probably in the evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the same sentences in Future. I think you should take my suggestions with a grain of salt, as I sometimes have difficulty sussing out where general information is valuable context for the reader and where it is encyclopedic throat clearing. Protonk (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've looked at a few other articles I wrote and I think I am willing to stand by the basic premise I was trying to follow. For the first couple of magazines (Amazing Stories, Wonder Stories) a brief discussion of magazine sf prior to Gernsback is necessary.  Past that point Amazing is the reference point; and once you get to the late 1930s the boom that runs from 1938 to 1941 should be mentioned.  I can get a little more expansive than that for a long article, but for a short article more detail risks overwhelming the subject.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The more of these I review the more I'll internalize the timelines and relationships. E.g. looking at Miracle I see a different thread entirely and I can see how each is appropriate. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)