Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle Birds/archive1

Battle Birds

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about one of the many air way pulp magazines that flourished from the late 1920s through World War II. It had a brief incarnation as a science fiction title, under the title Dusty Ayres and His Battle Birds. The article is short, but I think I've included everything that's been written about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47
Everything looks solid to me. A majority of my comments above are either clarification questions or minor nitpicks. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Hope you are having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, this is just a clarification question. Is "air-war" a common descriptor for this kind of genre? I have never heard of this phrase before, but these kinds of stories are very much outside of the usual genres I read so it may just be because of that.
 * Yes, it shows up fairly often in the sources. Do you think a link is necessary?  There's no article on the genre, but I could it to aerial warfare. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I do not think a link is necessary because it is a concept that can be easily understood on its own (at least in my opinion). It was just something that I wanted to double-check about as I am not super familiar with this genre. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a comment about this part, (with Robert Sidney Bowen, an established pulp writer, providing a lead novel each month, and also writing the short stories that filled out the issue), in the lead. I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as I have seen this point frequently raised in FACs. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but it is still something I'd avoid.
 * Removed. My understanding is that's technically a perfectly correct construction, but people dislike it because of the passive phrasing, and I can see their point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair. As I said above, I do not have strong feelings about it either way. It is just something that I avoid using as I know that it is disliked for FAs/FACs. I could see the rationale being against passive voice. I do remember seeing a more detailed explanation for this at some point, but it was a while back so I cannot fully remember it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a question about this part, (Charles Lindbergh's recent flight across the Atlantic), specifically with the "recent" word choice. While in the context of the paragraph, this word choice makes sense as it is meant to connect with the earlier "the summer of 1927" wording, but would it be more beneficial to add in the time it happened (May 1927) to avoid any potential confusion. Something about the "recent" wording just raised a red flag in my head so I wanted to ask about it.
 * Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would make sure pulp magazine is linked on the first instance in the body of the article to be consistent with the linking in the lead. I have the same comment for hero pulp.
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At the start of the "Contents" section, there is an instance of the citations not being in numeric order. Is there a reason for this?
 * No -- I occasionally will put the most important citation first, which can lead to them being out of numerical order, but in this case the Weinberg is the main citation, so I switched them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I always like to make sure and avoid changing it because I know different editors have different reasons for citation ordering (which are all valid in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article says that the magazine's stories were set in the future, but do we know any further information about that (i.e. the year or how many years in the future)? The article seems vague on that point so I get the impression that exact dates or specifics were not given, but I still wanted to ask to make sure.
 * I haven't found anything that gives the dates. I've never read one of these, but just based on what I know of the genre, I would guess it wasn't set very far in the future -- just far enough for the changes to not seem too implausible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me, and it fits the vibe and interpretation that I get when reading the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a question about this part, (unusually for a pulp series). I have not read any pulps so apologies in advance if this is obvious, but is this meaning that pulps traditionally do not have an ending that wraps up the story?
 * The source calls it "an unusual break with tradition" to end the series -- typically a publisher wouldn't want to do anything that would make it hard to bring the magazine (or character) back for more stories if they decided there was a market. Hero pulps did sometimes resurface after long periods; that happened to Nick Carter, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I had not considered how pulp characters do resurface even after long periods of absence. It kind of reminds to comic book characters in a certain sense where a lot of their stories do not really have concrete endings to keep the door open for future appearances. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a question about this part, (included a letter column). Would this be similar to a comic book letter column? Just asking as a link may be helpful, but I could also see that link being unnecessarily confusing since the article is focused on comics not pulps.
 * I did think about the link, but since this is a pulp I decided to skip it. To be honest I don't think letter column should really redirect to comic book letter column, since the latter is just a special case of the former.  But to answer your question, yes, the two things are essentially identical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your rationale. To be honest, I was somewhat astonished when letter column redirected to the article on the comic book version, and this is coming from someone who is familiar with the concept because of comic books. It is an odd case for sure, but I think the current version makes the most sense. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Jumping in here to say that I changed the redirect so that letter column now points to Letter to the editor, a more generic subject. Don't know if this changes the response to the above point?  Oh, and I plan to come back and do a review of this article later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chris. I think the best fix would be to change the focus of the existing article so it doesn't just talk about comics.  Letter columns were a major way for early sf fans to contact each other, and I doubt there's enough difference between the comic and magazine letter columns to justify a separate article.  I'll see if I have any sources that talk about this, and might post something on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Very helpful, as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again tomorrow. I do not imagine that I will find anything further. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Chris

 * "The next issue, March 1940, inaugurated a bimonthly run that last until the final issue" => "The next issue, March 1940, inaugurated a bimonthly run that lasted until the final issue"
 * Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Does the table meet accessibility requirements, given that it uses only colour to differentiate the issues edited by the different editors.....?
 * I think so -- the information conveyed by colour is also given in the text, in the "Bibliographic details" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

SC
Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Contents
 * "with another power; and to avoid": you don't need the "and" after a semi colon
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dusty Ayres: you refer to him in the first para bas both "Dusty" and "Ayres": worth thinking about just using one of the names?
 * Hadn't noticed I'd done that; thanks for spotting it. Made it "Ayres" in both places. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "an expert airplane painter": it's really pedantic of me, but I have an image of a man in overalls and pot of paint, painting the sides of a 747: "an expert painter of airplanes" would diminish that. (It's probably just me reading it that way, so I don't push the point here).
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That's it: the usual excellent work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the review; sorry about the delay in replying. All dealt with, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No probs. All good now. Happy to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
Brief but well put together, hence the fact that these were largely nit-picks. ~ HAL  333  01:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * --> "told Steeger he wanted to be the author of a hero pulp magazine" More concise, but feel free to disregard.
 * -- I feel that "all" and "single" serve the same effective purpose.
 * --> "Bowen's stories were set in the future"
 * The above three are done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do the sources state why it was relaunched? Was it due to the outbreak of WWII in Europe and Asia?
 * Unfortunately the sources don't say, though that's a good guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence starting "The Dusty Ayres version of the magazine included..." doesn't really follow the previous sentence -- it's not chronological.
 * I reversed the order of those two sentences. The 1940 relaunch is a bit of a non sequitur, but it needs to be in there.  I could move the Dusty Ayres sentence to the end of the previous paragraph, but that would leave a one-sentence paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * has already been stated. I might reword that bit.
 * The bibliographic details section is meant as a summary of the bits and pieces of bibliographic data, so I'd rather not eliminate anything on the basis that it's already been said earlier. I've tried a rephrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * needs italics
 * Oops; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review -- responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to support. ~ HAL  333  04:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass
The sources used all appear to me to be both reliable and high quality. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

 * "Bowen also wrote all the short stories for Dusty Ayres, unlike other hero pulps where other authors usually provided the short fiction." 1. "other" twice in five words is not ideal. 2. I am not entirely clear what you mean. Is it something like 'Bowen also wrote all the short stories for Dusty Ayres, unlike other hero pulps where several different authors usually provided the short fiction'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly the intended meaning. I went ahead and used your wording.  This was quite unusual (and the source does specifically comment on it); in most hero pulps the publisher would contract with a single author for the lead novels, but would then accept stories from any writer on the same general topic -- detective stories in The Shadow, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)