Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Analog Science Fiction and Fact/archive1


 * 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 by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2017.

Analog Science Fiction and Fact

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the most important magazine in the history of science fiction. For a few years, from the late 1930s, the editor, John W. Campbell, completely changed the field, and launched the careers of numerous famous sf writers, most notably Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. This also happens to be the last science fiction pulp magazine I intend to nominate here; all the others are now GAs (and probably too short for FA) or are already FAs. I'll probably bring one or two more articles on later (non-pulp) magazines here, and an article on the history of sf magazine, but with this article the end is in sight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:ASTJAN1930.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:ASF_0034.jpg
 * File:Changes_in_Astounding_SF_and_Analog_SF_title_layour_in_1960.jpg: the "n.a." parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; both are now fixed -- the first by uploading a better quality image and changing the source link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comments, leaning Support -- recusing from coord duties... A great read as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Copyedited as I usually do so pls let me know any concerns; outstanding points:
 * "The interior artwork, particularly by Elliot Dold, was also very impressive." -- "very impressive" is a bit opinionated, is it possible to employ a more descriptive term that's faithful to the source, or else attribute the opinion?
 * I think that several quotes should probably be attributed in-line or else paraphrased:
 * "one of the best-loved novels in sf" (Mission of Gravity)
 * "one of the most famous of all sf novels" (Dune)
 * I've attributed or tweaked all the above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Schmidt "continued the long-standing tradition of writing provocative editorials, though he rarely discussed science fiction" -- I'm intrigued to know the sort of things he did discuss in an sf mag editorial if not sf... :-)
 * Done with a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No dablinks but there are quite a few duplinks you could review with Ucucha's script.
 * I can't get this to work. Does it conflict with any other scripts such as pagesize, or the one that colours links green if they are redirects? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't know about the green-linking redirect one but it seems to work fine with pagesize for me. I wonder if it's anything to do with the skin -- definitely works for me with monobook, not sure of others. Worst case, I could go through the article and make the calls... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured it out; duplinks removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage-wise, I'm reasonably familiar with the history of the magazine and this seemed to hit all the right points without over-detailing.
 * Source-wise, all look reliable, dominated as they are by Mike Ashley's name -- I haven't checked formatting but may be able to get to that in due course.
 * Image-wise I'll of course defer to Nikki's review.
 * Thanks for the review. Your copyedits look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks, changes looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Mike, this article inspired me to re-read Aldiss' commentary on the mag in my copy of Trillion-Year Spree, and I wondered if the story about "Deadline" and the visit it provoked from the FBI might be worth a mention here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea; I'll get to that, perhaps tonight or tomorrow. There are so many stories about Campbell and the Golden Age that some have to be cut, but I'd forgotten about that one and I agree it should go in.  Have you read Hell's Cartographers, by the way?  Six autobiographical essays by Knight, Harrison, Aldiss, Bester, Pohl and Silverberg.  Some very good material there, including a "How We Work" essay by each of them that I found fascinating, since at one point I wanted to be a professional sf writer; but what brought it to mind was a wonderful and very funny anecdote by Bester about the only time he met Campbell, in the late 1940s.  Definitely worth a look if you don't already have it on your shelves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just added a paragraph about "Deadline"; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks for that, looks great (although I'd usual expect "similarities to" rather than "similarities with" -- is that an Americanism?). Yes, one of the good things about this article is its brevity (considering the longevity of its subject) so I don't think even the most casual observer could be bored, and it does leave room for the odd addition like this... I don't have Hell's Cartographers BTW, will try and read sometime; there's also Clarke's Astounding Days, which I do own but haven't checked lately... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like "similarities with" is acceptable but much rarer, so I changed it to "to"; and re-reading it I do think that's more natural. It might not be an Americanism in my case, though; my English is now a bastardized mixture of British and American, after twenty-seven years on the left side of the Atlantic.  I've read the Clarke; it's a long and fairly entertaining collection of anecdotes, but I don't think I've ever been able to use it to source anything on-wiki.  An enjoyable read, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Done to the end of the initial chronology


 * " Campbell took over editorial duties under Tremaine's supervision, and the following year Tremaine was let go, giving Campbell more independence." Is the last part with stating? If your supervisor is let go and not replaced, then it is fairly obvious you have more independence.
 * Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The period beginning with Campbell's editorship is often referred to as the Golden Age of Science Fiction." He was editor into the 1970s, by which time I think we can say the curtain was rung down on the Golden Era.
 * Yes, but it's hard to find consensus on when the Golden Age ends. See this, which I put together while working on this article, in order to try to get some consistency.  I could make it "decade", which is more or less supportable; or I could add a footnote explaining that the end date for the Golden Age is not universally agreed-on.  I think the latter might be better, unless you think it needs to be clearer in the body text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is something of a run-on
 * Fixed by eliminating the reference to Campbell's pseudo-science interests. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "such as" a phrase used five times in the lede, including four times in the second paragraph.
 * Yuck. Thanks for catching that.  Better now, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I still see four times in that paragraph (19 for the article).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I must have failed to hit save on that edit. Tried again; I took out a few in the body of the article too, where there were two close to each other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a better way to sum up the editorial change from Campbell to Bova than what writers became in under the new regime? Possibly dealing with the sort of SF, not your traditional space opera, perhaps.
 * I'm not quite sure what to do here. It's not that Campbell published space opera; it was more that Bova introduced elements that would have been forbidden under Campbell -- sex and profanity, for example.  Ashley identifies "Hero" and "The Gold at the Starbow's End" as important because they are examples "of how radically society and attitudes were changing in the early 1970s".  At the same time, Ashley points out that Bova made efforts to accommodate the long-time readers, partly by keeping the existing names such as Anderson and Dickson.  Is this not clear enough in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "who continued to publish many of the same authors who had been contributing for years" that is, under Bova, or under Campbell?
 * Under Bova; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "had a space for one more cover." I might cut "a"
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would pipe pulp magazine somewhere
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "that they start a magazine of period adventure stories" possibly "contemporary" for "period" if I understand what is meant (if not, "historical")
 * The source just says "the idea of a new monthly magazine of period-adventure stories", and gives no details. I think this must mean historical, so I've changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "He left on May 1, 1938, reducing Street & Smith's oversight of Campbell and giving him a freer rein." It feels like you are saying the same thing twice.
 * Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * " Harry Harrison had discussed taking over with Campbell before Campbell's death," a bit awkward. Maybe "Harry Harrison, before Campbell's death, had discussed with him the possibility of taking over,"
 * I tried a different tack -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "an adventure-oriented magazine, with no interest in education through science. " "with no interest"? Odd phrasing
 * Clarified, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "he began "The Analytical Laboratory", which calculated votes from readers" maybe "compiled" for "calculated".
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "and Hubert Rogers, whose first cover was for the February 1939 issue, and who quickly became a regular, " the second "and" can possibly be avoided.
 * Reworked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the final paragraph of "Campbell", consecutive sentences begin with "Campbell", probably unnecessarily.
 * I moved the sentence about Tremaine's era up to that section and moved the one about Campbell's editorship up to a paragraph about story ideas; I think that flows better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of "Golden Age" could benefit from splitting IMO.
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "publishing three novels in the next two years: If This Goes On—" sort of short for a novel. Its article says "novella".
 * I'd like to leave this as is -- Ashley refers to it as a "short novel", but it would be hard to draw that distinction in the list within lengthening the sentence. When it appeared in the magazine it was listed as a novel. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "instalment" This seems a more common spelling in countries other than the one where Analog originated.
 * Yes, my native dialect is now BrAmEng, so I'm prone to this sort of thing. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "several of the regular contributors such as Heinlein, Asimov, and Hubbard, who had joined the armed forces," Neither Heinlein nor Asimov was in the armed forces during WWII (Heinlein of course had been a naval officer earlier), they worked for the military as civilians.
 * My mistake; Ashley says "war work", not "armed forces", and I rephrased carelessly. Now says they joined the "war effort". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "in the fantasy work they were writing for Unknown, " I'd pluralize "work".
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "of the field.[notes 2] Campbell's growing interest in pseudoscience also damaged his reputation in the field." Possibly avoid the repetition.
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Also in 1979 Schmidt began" The footnotes that follow this sentence are out of order. This is also true twice in the "Bibliographic details" section and once in "Anthologies". I'd take a run through making sure I haven't missed any.
 * Done. You might be interested in this related survey. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The stable of fiction contributors remained largely unchanged from Bova's day, and included many names, such as Poul Anderson, Gordon R. Dickson, " both of these were mentioned two paragraphs previously. Are first names (and initial) needed?
 * No; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "genuinely unrecognized genius" (note 3). I might cut the "ly".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Enjoyable article on a magazine I certainly read much of in the 70s and 80s. I think I subscribed a couple of times at cheap WorldCon rates. Good to see the article done to a high standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee
Drive by comment:
 * Reference 40, labelled "TTM_106-112" hasn't been defined. I suspect the cite where it was defined was removed, leaving an orphan. —Bruce1eetalk 14:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A few more comments:
 * Twice in the lead the word "title" is used three times in close proximity. Perhaps "name", "publication" or "magazine" could be used instead. "Title" is also often repeated in close proximity throughout the body of the article.
 * I've fixed a few of these; see if that looks better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's better, thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "tremendously successful" – this sounds like puffery to me.
 * The source (Ashley) says "In 1931 they had a remarkable success with The Shadow.... It was instantly successful, with a circulation rocketing to 300,000 copies."  I'm open to rephrasing, but the success of The Shadow really was spectacular, and it was instrumental in convincing Street & Smith that a science fiction magazine could be successful, so I think there does need to be some indication to the reader that it did very well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. —Bruce1eetalk 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of short paragraphs in the "Street & Smith" section. Perhaps they could be combined.
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are inconsistencies in the spacing between the initials of people. For example: both "E.E. Smith" and "E. E. Smith" are used; also "A.E. van Vogt" and "A. E. van Vogt"; "C.L. Moore" and "C. L. Moore", etc
 * I think I got all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done a little copyediting here, otherwise it looks good. I haven't reviewed the sources as many of them are offline. —Bruce1eetalk 14:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedit and the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. It all looks fine now – an interesting read, and maintaining the high standard of your previous sf mag nominations. —Bruce1eetalk 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review

 * Already verified reliability in my review above.
 * Formatting-wise, a few things:
 * Not a biggie but any reason Nicholls (FN7) isn't with the book refs and just short-cited?
 * FN04 and some others use yyyy-mm-dd for the access date -- spelling out as you do in FN09 and elsewhere would help consistency and user-friendliness.
 * Your archive date in FN08 is not in US date format.
 * No page number for FN27?
 * FN34 uses "pages" instead of "pp." (might be best to put the whole thing into a cite magazine template anyway).
 * FN50 also has "pages" and could perhaps be reformatted more consistently with similar sources.
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these; I'll clean them up. The FN7 issue is interesting; I think I added that years ago and they all should be changed to the web entry, but when I started looking at them I notice one minor error, and a point that I think Ashley has wrong, because it made me reread the cite to the NYT about the purchase of Street & Smith by Condé Nast.  Everyone gives it as February 1962 but the NYT article makes it clear it was really 1959.  I've emailed Ashley to ask about it, though of course I can't use what he says until he publishes it!  I'll finish cleaning the rest up tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 04:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortunately he had already noticed the error and there's a footnote about it in his most recent book, which I was able to cite. More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * all done, I think; I also decided to convert all the SFE citations to point to the online version, as it's more accessible to readers and is maintained. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh, made you work for it, didn't I -- tks Mike, you've addressed everything and more...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I really should have done it before nominating! By the way, I heard back from Ashley and he had the information I needed in a corrigendum in Science Fiction Rebels, so I was able to cite that.  I also heard he's working on yet another volume, though he doesn't know what the end date will be -- maybe 2005. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.