Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astonishing Stories/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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011.

Astonishing Stories

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Astonishing Stories was a relatively minor science fiction magazine, but it managed to publish early fiction by some of the biggest names in the field, such as Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. It also launched the editorial career of Frederik Pohl, one of the most important sf magazine editors; he was only nineteen when Popular Publications hired him. It lasted for sixteen issues, from 1940 to 1943. The covers are out of copyright so I've been able to include several as illustrations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Clute & Nicholls or Nicholls & Clute?
 * Shorten citations to Way the Future Was or The Way the Future Was?
 * No citations to del Rey
 * Where is Garden City? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All fixed. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support this excellent article, but inevitably with a couple of minor comments: Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Popular saved money by using whichever word count was shorter—the author's count or a recount done by Popular's staff. The result was a savings of forty to fifty dollars per issue. Some more space was saved by reusing snipped elements of black and white illustrations to fill space in the issue; multiple uses of the same artwork did not require additional payments to the artist." It wasn't exactly a "recount", as Popular's staff didn't do the first count, but more importantly is the emphasis of the third sentence. We're in a section describing cost savings, not space savings, therefore I think the sentence needs to be flipped around a bit to reflect that.
 * "Instead of replacing him directly, Popular assigned editor-in-chief Alden H. Norton to edit the magazines." I'm not at all sure what "replacing him directly" means.
 * Both reworded; let me know if either still seems unclear or inaccurate. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me now, hope you didn't mind my fiddling around with your opus. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all; as always your copyedit was a big help. There's just one change you made that didn't look right to me: shouldn't "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received when he was the editor" be "when he had been the editor"?  It's past perfect, isn't it, since we're talking about an event further in the past? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, the tenses didn't quite match. On the other hand I think that "he had received when he had been the editor" is a bit wordy, so my alternative offering is "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received as the editor". But of course it's ultimately up to you, I'm just suggesting stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Image - Astonishing issues grid.png is an image of a table. It's better to show tables as tables.
 * It says The colors identify the editors. Coding isn't accessible if it relies on colour.
 * Is it possible to produce the table as a table? Lightmouse (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does include the same information, either in the caption or elsewhere in the article, so I think the information is still accessible to a colour-blind reader. For the general question, there have been previous discussions, and I set up a sandbox to show the best available table versus the image.  The layout goals for a table are described on the talk page of that sandbox. If we can resolve those issues I would be happy to switch to a table but currently I don't think the presentation justifies it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot our previous discussion about this issue. Can anyone else find a solution? Lightmouse (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just come across a good example of a table that may be a template for you. See 1952_Winter_Olympics. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that one solve the problem of text running too close to the table when you float the table so text runs round it? That's one of the ugliest things about the current floating tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike, saw this on LM's contribs list. Ah yes, I remember this issue from when it was raised before. I must say, the general look of these screen-shot tables is not so good to me. The blue and yellow for the two editors is a nice idea, and to us non-colour-blind it's all rather a bore to clip our wings by not using colour-coding (apologies to LM); but I get the point. Perhaps a discreet asterisk for Norton's editions instead of the colour? Tony   (talk)  13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't create a myth that accessibility forbids colour on web pages. That's as false as saying it also forbids stairs in hospitals. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility) "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information."
 * Lightmouse (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Tony meant it quite like that. Tony, I think the key for me is that this is a visual aid that is additional to the information.  The whole point is to provide a visual presentation that can supplement the text; the image/table is not the primary presentation of the data.  The asterisk would not be as good at conveying the information at a glance, and in many cases there are more than two editors, so multiple colours are needed.  See Planet Stories, for example.  I do want this to be accessible, but I think I have two bad options at the moment -- a table with layout problems or an image that is inaccessible to screen readers.  I think the image is the better choice at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review - ignoring the table discussion above, licensing appears unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Mike, I just don't understand why normal wiki table syntax can't be used. These images of tables look unprofessional to me in terms of resolution and design. They're jpegs, are they? Wiki tables are much crisper in appearance. And why the dotted lines? Tony   (talk)  14:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The tables can certainly be used if there's a consensus that they look better. I would like to solicit opinions at WT:FAC if it looks like we're going that way, just because these images are in a dozen FAs and so far there hasn't been a consensus that they have to be switched to tables; but if the result is that people think the tables look better, I've no problem with switching.  Personally I think tables look worse.  Take a look here to see a direct comparison, and see here for a list of issues. I think the worst problem is the lack of space in the text flow around the table, but there are other issues too.  I also want to reiterate that I agree the images have problems too -- neither is perfect.  If we can solve the table problems then the table is clearly a better choice, but I think the tables are worse at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lack of margins can easily be fixed by tweaking your CSS a bit, as I've done (without your permission, so sorry for that) in your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology needed, though I will probably reverse it (or at least tweak it) shortly as it appears to have had the side effect of blacking out some of the cells. Yes, that does seem to have fixed the issue.  But does that help?  Any individual user could apply this fix for themselves, but a random visitor to the page would still see the pre-CSS-change text flow, wouldn't they? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's the static CSS in the table that's been tweaked, not the CSS for an individual user, so everyone sees the the same thing. And setting a margin can have no effect on the table cells. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I think that problem is solved. (Not sure what happened with the cell images; they went grey on me for a while but look OK now.)  I've listed on the talk page of that sandbox the three remaining issues -- I think it's pretty close now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can fix those remaining issues if you're still happy for me to stick my prying fingers into your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. There's also an accessibility issue that needs to be addressed with the table, and I'll fix that as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead; thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that remains problematic is the cell padding, hence the "excessive" white space you're complaining of, which there doesn't seem to be any nice way to resolve. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is much improved; thanks. I'll let others comment on which they prefer; I'd like to see the cell padding shrunk if possible as otherwise it is likely to push into headings, but I'll go with consensus.  I really appreciate your work on this.  One odd thing, which has nothing to do with your changes: in IE the yellow cells all appear black.  I've seen this on two different computers, and it happens when I'm logged out, so it should be possible for others to see it too.  Can you take a look and see if you spot it too?  I went back through history and it none of the yellow cells appear yellow in IE, right back to the first version with colour.  Any idea what's going on with that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that may have been because you specified the background colour as "FF9" rather than "#FF9", but I don't have immediate access to a machine running IE to check whether or not that's fixed the problem. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That didn't fix it. If I get time this weekend I will see if I can figure it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is now resolved: Jappalang has provided an svg file that avoids the resizing fuzziness. Malleus has provided a good deal of additional help on the table layout but it is still not quite where I feel it should be, so I will use the svg file for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support from Steve  T • C. This is an excellent article; nice work on finding so much information about what was a marginal publication in the history of SF. My only real comments concern a couple of ambiguous points, and a few snippets of information that you may or may not wish to include. Feel free to disregard any of these; some of them merely provide additional detail (trivia, even) around points the article already makes, or may place too much emphasis on one author, so their inclusion or otherwise won't affect my support:
 * "Stowaway" appeared in Astonishing under the name "The Callistan Menace". Is there any reason you've gone with the former title here, other than that it was the story's first (and presumably, Asimov's preferred) title?
 * I think I had a reason, but I can't remember it so I've changed it to the published title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In March 1940, Pohl told Asimov that the response to "Half Breed" was such that he felt justified in asking for a sequel, the first time that Asimov had been asked to write one. According to Asimov, "Half-Breeds on Venus" (at ten thousand words long) was the longest he had sold up to that time, and "Pohl's magazines were doing so well that his budget had been increased and he was able to pay me five eights of a cent a word for it – $62.50". Submitted to Pohl on June 3, "Half Breeds on Venus" marked the first time an Asimov story provided the cover art for a magazine.
 * The financial details are captured in a footnote which you may have overlooked; I thought it didn't need to be more prominent than that, but let me know if you disagree. The point about it being Asimov's first cover story I considered but decided was not really necessary detail for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. The bit about the financial arrangements I'd spotted in the footnotes, but I didn't know if it was worth the very minor elaboration Asimov provided, at the expense of loss of focus. Same goes for the first cover point, so I'm fine with your choices in both cases. Steve  T • C
 * "Heredity" (nicely pictured) was yet another that was rejected by Campbell at Astounding before finding a home with Pohl. Maybe the wider point about Pohl's willingness, and indeed enthusiasm, for snapping up rejected stories could be made clearer, but this might be harder to cite.
 * I do have a sentence about this at the top of the Contents section -- do you think more is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha. That's what I get for splitting my last read-through into two. Never mind. :-) Steve  T • C
 * According to Asimov, Pohl was relieved of his editorship because his magazines had begun to sell poorly, which seems to conflict slightly with the implication in this article that Pohl left the magazine because his request for a raise was turned down.
 * This jibes well with a comment in The Way the Future Was about Steeger having complaints; I've added that and put Asimov's supporting comments in a footnote. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems fine, considering Asimov will likely have heard about this at a step removed from Pohl. Steve  T • C
 * Also according to Asimov, Astonishing was actually killed by the World War II paper shortage.
 * I missed that; I've now found a mention of it in The Early Pohl and added a cite to that, which I think is a bit better than Asimov as a source since Pohl was working at Popular and would have known the reason first-hand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Asimov's comment was a bit of a throw-away, and I hesitated to recommend it in the first place; your cite to The Early Pohl works far better. Steve  T • C
 * I'll gladly provide the citations to any of these if you need them; I'm being a little lazy by not typing them out right away, but you might not want any of this information and I thought I'd save a little space. They're mainly from The Early Asimov, a collection in which Asimov provides introductions to each story while giving a few comments about its background and history, especially with regard to his relationship with the magazines and editors of the period. (Unfortunately, I've mislaid volume one, which IIRC contains some possibly-useful information about publication of "The Callistan Menace" and "Half-Breed"—if you can access a copy, it may be worth the time.) But, once again, nice work. Steve  T • C 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these -- very helpful. I should have thought of going through The Early Asimov, but it never occurred to me. Let me know if you think more is needed on the points above; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; I hoped to find something in I, Asimov too, but as he does with most subjects in that book, Asimov applies too broad a brush just at the points when fine detail would be useful to us. All the best, Steve  T • C 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Image issues resolved with their removals Oppose for image copyright issues : The copyrights for all issues of this periodical have been properly renewed; as such, the three (or any) covers (I have noted their registrations in their PUFs) are copyrighted material and would have to satisfy all 10 NFCCs if left in the article. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All cover images removed -- I don't have a sufficient justification to keep them if they're not free. I would very much like to know how you found these; I use this as my guide to finding copyright, and the Project Gutenberg listing linked there does not contain that renewal as far as I can see.  I've used that to search for several other magazine renewals so I would like to recheck other articles I've written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Comments : I have a few suggestions for the language in the first section.
 * "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year, and visited Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, to ask for a job as an assistant."
 * "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year. He asked Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, for a job as an assistant."
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Erisman turned him down, but suggested ..."
 * "Erisman turned him down and suggested ..."
 * Not so sure, but I think suggesting an alternative is not necessarily a contradiction (or unexpected action) to a rejection?
 * I'd like to leave this as is -- I think the underlying sense is that Pohl attempts to get a job, he fails, but he then gets an opportunity. The "but" is contrasting failure with possible success. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "... new line of low-paying magazines ..."
 * I think "low-paying" is redundant here (and hence can be removed for a smoother read), considering a fuller exposition is given later.
 * Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was bimonthly, with Super Science Stories appearing in the alternate months."
 * "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was a bimonthly periodical, alternating monthly with Super Science Stories."
 * I made part of this change -- I left out "periodical" as I think it's unnecessarily wordy at that point; the reader knows it's a periodical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am favourable to support this article, pending the resolution of the above image issues. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have a question about the svg you created (for which thank you); I'll post that at your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems, I have answered your query. As for this article it was an brief, entertaining, and educational read.  Pohl's actions as an editor who buys his own stories does raise my eyebrow on his ethics&mdash;and if he was discovered, but I do not think this is necessarily part of the coverage for this periodical.  So I am now supporting this article for FA.  Jappalang (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. Re Pohl: I'm sure I've seen a comment in his memoirs to the effect that one reason he used a lot of pseudonyms was to conceal from Popular how many stories he was buying from himself.  If I can find that I might add a footnote; it implies he was doing something he shouldn't, but I think it was also clear from context that Popular expected him to do it to some extent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.