Talk:Fantastic (magazine)

Recent copyedit
I think this copyedit is not an improvement, but I don't want to revert without discussion. Example problems: A couple of the changes are indeed improvements, but not significant ones. Any other opinions? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) repetition of "the company" in the first couple of sentences
 * 2) changing Amazing to Amazing Stories; the sources generally abbreviate it to just Amazing
 * 3) unneeded "however" added
 * 4) introducing an em dash at the start of the publishing history, which breaks the flow; Fantastic Adventures was a natural expansion, not a surprise, and the syntax should reflect that
 * 5) "they remained monthly" -> "they were still issued monthly" -- unnecessarily wordy


 * Hi Mike, thanks for your comments; I hope you don't mind my turning your list to a numbered list to enable clear discussion.


 * I was unfamiliar with the magazine (and the sub-industry generally) before I read the article yesterday. If I could clarify why I made each change:


 * 1) I clarified that Ziff Davis was company, because until I clicked through to that article, I thought it was a person. I don't know if there's a solution to repeating the phrase "the company" in the following sentence. Perhaps "Ziff Davis quickly..."?
 * 2) I had heard of Amazing Stories, but did not know there was a magazine called, simply, Amazing. Since the reference is in fact to Amazing Stories, I felt it appropriate—in the introduction at the very least—to 'spell out' the full name.
 * 3) I believe this makes sense and should stand—after all, Goldsmith […] was unable to increase circulation… appears in the preceding paragraph. However, please go ahead and remove my "however" if you believe it helps the sentence read better.
 * 4) I agree, and have removed the dash.
 * 5) I don't think they remained monthly makes sense, but please feel free to revert if you like.


 * Thank you. — Hugh (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the polite note; sorry if I sounded snippy. You make some good points.  I think I'll let the edits stand; I'm probably biased, since I wrote most of the article, and it's hard to see problems in your own prose.  I am not a fan of "however", because I see it misused as a meaningless connector so often, but leave it in here if you think it improves the flow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, -- and you didn't sound snippy in the least. I think I'll probably re-read the article at a later date and re-think the "however," but for now I think it works well. Thanks again. — Hugh (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Errors / vandalism?
There's a long section on feces that appears to have nothing to do with this article. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Please delete this remark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)