Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ace Books

Ace Books
Self-nomination. I've managed to get this to GA status, and have gone through the FA criteria to identify what can be improved. I look forward to improving the article through this review; whether or not it gets to FA -- though I will certainly be doing my best to make it to FA. Thanks in advance to the reviewers. Mike Christie 04:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I've done some correcting of typos and other small things, and slightly modified the first sentence, which seemed unclear. This is an impressively detailed, well-researched article. Sam Clark 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Outriggr 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Comments. Looks promising! Without regarding to voting, I wanted to suggest a couple of areas that might need clarification:
 * "the oldest publisher of science fiction and fantasy novels still active" - still active where - in the world? Regardless of answer, could this be referenced?
 * "Further mergers and acquisitions ultimately resulted in Ace becoming a part of Berkley Books, and Ace is now a paperback imprint of Penguin Group (USA)." - I don't know the current status from this sentence. It says "ultimately", which implies there have been no further developments since Berkley; but then it says it is a now with Penguin.
 * "The editorial team at Ace is the same team that edits the Roc imprint, although the two [imprints] maintain a separate identity." suggest the addition of "imprints" because the sentence reads that one team maintains two identities.
 * for general readership, suggest expanding "SF" to "science fiction" throughout
 * disambiguate dos-a-dos link(s)

I am willing to go through the whole article if you'd like a dose of my armchair copyediting. Outriggr 04:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please; that would be very helpful. With regard to the first point you raise, I think the intent (the sentence predates my involvement) is to indicate that it is *now* a specialist sf publisher, and no current specialist sf publisher has been around as long as Ace. One could certainly find sf works that predate 1952 which were published by publishers that still exist, so in that sense the sentence is incorrect.  Referencing the intended meaning would be a bit difficult, though I might find the claim asserted in a reference work (and will look).  Short of that the claim may have to be removed; in the meantime please copyedit as you see fit.  Thanks. Mike Christie 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One additional comment -- with regard to the sf vs. science fiction question, I agree that a general readership must have the abbreviation explained. I'm concerned that it will seem clunky to repeat "science fiction" at every turn, though; perhaps we could establish the use of the abbreviation early in the article?  If we do use it, I have been preferring "sf" to "SF", except in captions/titles; that's the style used in e.g. the Nicholls/Clute "Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction", the most prominent reference work in the field. Mike Christie 04:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, I have finished my edits to the article. Please review and ensure I haven't changed any meanings or such. I moved a couple of sections around and moved two main headings out of main-heading status. Comments: I take it that collecting is an important aspect of Ace Books; if so I think the article should discuss that aspect more. I didn't know what this sentence meant: "Carr became a freelance editor; both Carr and Wollheim went on to edit separate Year's Best volumes." - best volumes of what, and with what company? Also, "Genres in the 1950s and 1960s" doesn't have any inline references. That might bother someone... Outriggr 13:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a few wording changes; take a look and see what you think. Specific points you raise:
 * Collecting: yes, collectors like the covers, and the doubles format. The titles section is really there only because of the collectors; I doubt it could be justified without that.  I've added a little about specialist references -- is more needed?
 * Year's Best -- this is a reference to the earlier mention of Carr and Wollheim editing a "Year's Best SF" anthology. There have been quite a few of these series in the sf field, and Carr's and Wollheim's versions were quite notable and influential.  Wollheim's were (unsurprisingly) published by his own company, DAW; Carr's were published by Ballantine.  Do we actually need to mention this at all, now I come to think of it?  That sentence predates my involvement in editing the article, and I guess I've never thought about whether it was needed.
 * Genres in the 50s etc. The data that makes this verifiable is all in the titles listings, which are linked later in the article.  Those are in turn verifiable since each book provides the verification of the dates and genre.  What's an appropriate way to cite that?  I could use a tag to point to those articles, but on the face of it that would contravene the reliable sources dictum that Wikipedia is not a citable source.  What do you think the best way is to do this?
 * -- Mike Christie 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. 1) If there is a collecting community it might be interesting to know what makes a book valuable, etc. Fairly minor. 2) Neutral on that. 3) I agree with your point. Perhaps you can leave it be - "dominant sf publisher" maybe could use a ref. Outriggr 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Done; take a look. Should the prices be up in the text instead of down in the footnotes?  2) I'll leave it as is.  3) Added a ref.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some other thoughts for you... I feel the lead could use one more summary paragraph. It goes from an intro about the company, to the death of Wyn and Ace's declining status. A middle paragraph could be a summary of the company's glory days, with the first paragraph being introductory, maybe even reiterating the historical interest in Ace today. Also, a "criticism" section seems to be a requirement for today's FA's (unless they're about Pokemon, perhaps). Is there any interesting stuff you could add about criticism of the company at any point in its history, due to its being a "pulp" fiction publisher or such? I would definitely support after those additions (not that I won't support it now). I expect you will encounter some opposition due to the "listiness" of the last sections of the article. Anything you could do to reduce the point-form style would probably help with other supporters. Outriggr 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten and slightly expanded the lead; take a look and fix as you think fit. I am having a hard time coming up with a criticism section, though.  Any such criticism of it as a publishing house would have to be of the form "authors X and Y claim they were cheated by Ace", and I don't know of material like that, though no doubt there is some.  I do have that anecdote of Wollheim's about the Ace author who had to pick fruit for a living because Ace didn't pay him, but I don't see how to make a section of it.  As for the listiness, I think the best candidate to eliminate as a list would be the serial number section, which could be made into a table, perhaps.  Would that be an improvement, though?  I don't see what to do about the other lists -- they seem inherently listy to me.  Any suggestions on that?  Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to my feedback - I have added my support above! Outriggr 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's OK, but the prose could do with a massage.
 * First sentence: "and began as a genre publisher, starting with mysteries and westerns." Why not: "and began as a genre publisher of mysteries and westerns."
 * The word "Ace" occurs 13 times in a shortish lead. Can you find synonyms to break down this repetition?
 * Consider stating the country of origin in the lead.
 * "various Ace Science Fiction Specials series"—"various" is redundant. So is "in business" here: "was one of the leading sf paperback publishers for its first ten years in business."

Further treatment required in the body of the article. Tony 06:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments; I've edited the lead -- take another look.  I cut six "Ace"s from the lead.  I couldn't find a tidy way to say "US company", so I said the company was founded "in New York"; is this good enough?  I agree re "in business", but I'm not convinced about "various Ace Science Fiction Specials series" -- if I take out "various" it will sound as if there was only one series, and that's not the case.  Given that, do you still think this is redundant?
 * I'll take another pass through the rest of the text and try to tighten it up some more along these lines. Any other specific comments would be very helpful.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: Great job on the article. I especially found the Tolkien controversy very interesting, since I own the Ballantine edition, and wondered what he meant by that. One thing though, about a sentence in the lead: "These (books) have proved attractive to collectors, and some rare titles now command prices of up to $1,000." Should you cite that? --Dark Kubrick 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's cited down below in the main body; I could add the cite, but I think the preferred style is to avoid refs in the lead if they are reffed later. As for the Ballantine edition, do you mean you have the authorized version from the 1960s?  I'd like to put in a ref for the "message from Tolkien urging consumers to buy the authorized edition" -- this was recently added by another editor and it would be great to cite the actual Ballantine edition as the footnote.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do own it. What information do you need? --Dark Kubrick 21:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you add a reference tag to the statement about the message from Tolkien, using the Ballantine edition as the referenced source? That statement is currently unsourced.  Thanks!  Mike Christie (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure about how to cite the book, so just edit the reference as you see fit. The First Ballantine Book Edition was published in October 1965, and the comment the article is talking about is in the foreword, on page 12. Hope that helps. --Dark Kubrick 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- that's great. I've put it into cite book format; I appreciate the help. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Sumoeagle179 23:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)