Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galaxy Science Fiction/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 SandyGeorgia 23:33, 23 October 2010.

Galaxy Science Fiction

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy was one of the most influential science fiction magazines ever published, but it came into being almost accidentally, because of the failure of an Italian company to launch a romance magazine in the US at the end of the 1940s. It was edited for ten years by an H.L. Gold, an agoraphobe who never went to the office, and for another eight years by Frederik Pohl; it fell into decline in the 1970s and disappeared in 1980, with a brief revival fourteen years later. A couple of FAs on similar topics, if you'd like to compare, are Amazing Stories and If. Mike Christie (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment— dab links to John Varley and Peter Nicholls; no dead external links. Ucucha 00:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ucucha 01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Not a full review yet, but there is one problems that I can see straight away. Ref 1 refers to "Clute & Nicholls, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", as do numerous other refs. In 53, however, it has become Encyclopedia of SF, and the authors (or editors?) have become "Nicholls and Clute". This format also occurs in 54. The original format returns for 63 and 74, but in 98 we have a new arrangement, "Nicholls & Clute", followed by "Clute and Nicholls" in 99. Can you standardise these into one format? I suggest you include the date 1993, to help avoid confusion with two other works that have similar names. I'll complete a proper sources review later. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed; I also did some other regularization that I spotted; please let me know if there are any other inconsistencies. Mike Christie (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A few more sources issues:
 * There appear to be no citations to Ashley, Michael (1978). The History of the Science Fiction Magazine Part 4
 * Removed. Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency required in references re "Michael Ashley" and "Ashley". A similar problem with Edwards, who is both "Malcolm Edwards" and "Edwards, Malcolm"
 * Ouch. This was kind of a mess, when I looked at it more closely; I have now regularized all the references so that the footnotes use "firstname lastname" for citations to pieces within a book, as in those cases the references list does not give the contributor name and so I should do so in the footnote.  I think I got them all; please let me know if you see any more issues. Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 64: Is the format "Horace, GalaxyCA" correct?
 * It's hard to be sure of the capitalization because both uses (contents page and title page) are in all caps. Bester's intention is probably either a play on "America" or "Galaxy CA" (Gold was living in California at the time) but the former is I suppose more likely (and looks less odd) so I will change it to "Galaxyca". Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source/citations review. It's a tedious job and I'm glad you and Ealdgyth are so thorough. Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All sources issues fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There appears to be a problem with the volume/issue numbers in File:Galaxy 1970s issues grid.png. Issues 33/7 and 33/8 in July and September 1973 appear as 34/7 and 34/8. Volume 35 also seems to start at issue 5 in May 1974.--DavidCane (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * These are in fact correct; the errors are in the magazines themselves. I've added a note to the caption and provided a source -- I should have done so before; thanks for spotting that. Mike Christie (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose
 * This looks like an impressive assembly of information and is generally well-written. It is refreshing to see something constructed alomst entirely from offline sources, though of course that limits source-checking; my one source-check, for a book available through Google books' snippet view, was all good.
 * I have a concern about the sourcing of the "Origins and 1950s" section. Footnotes 7 through 10 are to Gold writing about his own magazine experience. He cannot be used as a source for such things as "The magazine was profitable within five issues, a remarkable achievement". We can't have him making his own assessment of his achievements. "He proposed paying three cents a word, an impressively high rate, given that most competing magazines were only paying one cent a word." We only have Gold's word for this being the strategy and being "impressively high"? I also don't know whether it is adequate to rely on Gold reporting other stuff he may have heard second hand, like "World Editions made a heavy loss on Fascination": are there no other sources on this early history?
 * This is a fair point. I think I can find some of this in Ashley, though to be perfectly honest I would be astonished if Ashley were not relying directly on the same source I quote here. However, I think it's fine even if so, because then we have a reliable source's authority for the credibility of Gold's account.  Where I can't find a backup source I'll see if I can change it to "Gold claimed" or something like that; I agree that where I only have Gold I can't really use "remarkable" and "impressive".  I'll get to this tomorrow sometime. Mike Christie (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ping me at my talk page when done and I'll check it out. Everything else looks better. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of how those sources are used. I'll use the footnote number since that's quicker, referencing this version throughout, since I changed the footnote numbers by adding at least one more.  I was able to cut one or two by finding other sources; this list is the ones I couldn't source elsewhere.  The "impressively high rate" comment that you mention is actually sourced to Ashley, so that one isn't part of this list.
 * [7]: the only part of this sentence that this sources is the word "heavy"; Gold estimates they sold five percent of the fifth issue, with a million copy press run. Since this is not about Gold himself I think this is OK.
 * [8] first use: I added a Tymn & Ashley cite that covers most of it; they only refer to Gold's long range plans, so the Gold cite clarifies that the plans were presented prior to the launch. With the new cite I think this is OK.
 * [8] second use: this states that the novel series was named Galaxy Science Fiction Novels; I could add a cite from Nicholls & Clute saying that this was the title of the companion novel series, and I can cite that it began in October 1950 as the magazine did; I can only cite Gold for the fact that that series is what he conceived and proposed to World Editions. Again this seems unexceptionable, though I can add the other citation support if you think it's useful.
 * [8] third and fourth use: these both form an anecdote about the origin of the title. I don't think I have anything else that I can use to source any of this, so I could cut it if you wish, but none of this seems self-serving and I'd like to leave it in.
 * [9] first use (in note 2): this is OK as it simply points out an error in Gold's recollection.
 * [9] second use: "Within months, however, the outbreak of the Korean War led to paper shortages that forced Gold to find a new printer, Robert M. Guinn. The new paper was not as good quality, a disappointment to Gold" -- I don't have another source for this; I think it's OK.
 * [10] first use: profitable within five issues/a remarkable achievement: I've reworded this to clarify that the source for this is Gold. This one is dubious, but I hope the rewording does the trick.
 * [10] second use: in note 7; already says "According to" so I hope this is OK.
 * [10] third use: a quote, so OK.
 * [13] : this is used for the details of the disruption at World Editions. Ashley says there was internal strife, sabotage, and a sale to Guinn in consequence, but gives fewer details than Gold does; specifically Gold gives the two saboteurs' job titles, identifies the southern US as one of the problem regions, gives the price, and says the two men tried to recruit him.  Gold also gives the story about Guinn wanting four times the price to sell the magazine back.  I would like to keep this material; it's good colour, and I see no particular reason for distrusting Gold on this.
 * [62] : the story of The Demolished Man being a collaboration is also in Bester's memoir in Galaxy: Thirty Years of Innovative Science Fiction, so I've added a citation to that. Bester doesn't give the exact time frame, but he does call it a "collaboration", which would be the arguably self-serving part of any quote from Gold, so I think this passes.
 * That's all the ones I can see. Let me know which of these is still a problem.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that cuts it for me. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally a very impressive article which I would hope to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The referencing style for the edited volume chapter is also problematic: "Gold, "Gold on Galaxy", in Galaxy: Thirty Years of Innovative Science Fiction" does not allow one to readily find the source work in the bibliography, because the footnote text lacks the names of the editors (Pohl, Frederik, Greenberg, Martin H., and Olander, Joseph D.). Please revise, probably to include editor names, so that the cross-referral is simple.
 * I think this is now fixed; I went through and looked for other instances and have made everything conform; let me know if I missed something. Mike Christie (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The artwork section seems brief (a criticism that certainly cannot be laid against the article in general). When i was doing a source check for something else, I came across this in Ashley's Gateways to Forever: "Gaughan had been a regular contributor to Galaxy throughout the sixties and had won the Hugo Award for best professional artist in three consecutive years from 1967 to 1969, as much for his work in Galaxy and If as for his paperback covers..." It seems odd that information like this isn't covered in the article. Any particular reason?
 * No reason; I just hadn't found that quote, which is annoying as I thought I'd scoured that book. Thanks for finding it!  I added it and was also able to find a short quote in Transformations that enables me to add another half sentence.  I agree the artwork section is too short; I had real trouble finding good sources for that material -- everything I found talks generally about the artists rather than specifically about their work for Galaxy.  Anyway, I added a sentence; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: An impressive piece of research. It could use a bit of copyediting, which I'm happy to provide over the next few days. One query on the lede:


 * "It has been suggested that Galaxy was single-handedly responsible for revolutionizing the field, and that it was primarily Galaxy's influence the led to the New Wave, the most important sf movement of the 1960s." Resolved.

This concluding sentence makes two points—one general, then one specific. There is obviously some overlap between them, but it is hardly evident how much. If Galaxy's revolutionary effect is largely a matter of it inspiring the New Wave, then the sentence is redundant and needs to be tightened. If it had an additional revolutionary effect, that needs to be articulated in summary fashion.—DCGeist (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer of the copyedit; always appreciated. The sentence you quote from the lead is a summary of two points made in the influence section; you can see there that it's a combination of points made by Ashley and Kyle.  I selected them as clear statements, fairly representative, and having some substantive content beyond praise.  I didn't intend for the two points to be connected in any way, other than as statements about Galaxy ' s influence -- the "and" was meant to avoid a logical implication there. Would it suffice to add the attributions to Ashley and Kyle?  E.g. "Magazine historian Mike Ashley has suggested that Galaxy was single-handedly responsible for revolutionizing the field, and sf historian David Kyle has asserted it was primarily Galaxy's influence that led to the New Wave, the most important sf movement of the 1960s."  That sounds a bit clunky, I think -- perhaps separate sentences would be better.  Please feel free to pull in other material from the influences section if you think it would help. Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of attributions, which aren't necessary in the lede. It's the question of how did Galaxy "revolutionize" the field. Without something a little more specific, it reads like puffery. Yes I do think it needs to be broken into two sentences. The content of the second sentence—concerning the seminal effect on the New Wave—seems fairly straightforward; the first, though, not so much yet. As it happens, before I posted my earlier comment, I looked at the Influence on the field section to see if I could readily resolve my question and I found I couldn't. Here's the issue:


 * In Influence we find, "Ashley regards Galaxy's success as the main reason for the subsequent boom in science fiction magazines." Preceding Influence, we've been given the details: "From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950. Galaxys appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; and according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954." However, "By the late 1950s, the science fiction magazine boom was over, and the relatively low-circulation of the magazines did not endear them to distributors." So: Galaxys swift success was the primary motivation for a temporary (and secondary), seven- or eight-year boom in the sf magazine market. That's important to be sure, but it hardly strikes me as an effect warranting the label "revolutionized" in the lede. It may or not be worth mentioning the effect on this mid-1950s boom in the lede—that's up to you—but I would hesitate to call it revolutionary. However, it is the sentence in Influence relating to that mid-1950s magazine boom where Ashley's "revolutionized" quote appears...


 * The following sentences of Influence describe an effect that is much more plausibly "revolutionary"—a major impact on the aesthetics of the sf field: "Galaxy provided a market for social science fiction stories that might not have been accepted [elsewhere]"; it was "where 'the stunning new kinds of science fiction ... flowered, and changed everything in science fiction'"; "'After Galaxy it was impossible to go on being naive'"; with its innovative aesthetic, "Galaxy quickly overtook Astounding as the leader of the field". In sum, it really does seem like Galaxy revolutionized the field—in this way. That appears to be what needs to be stated in the lede's third graf (with variation sufficiently elegant that it doesn't simply repeat the related points made in the first graf).—DCGeist (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right; I've read through your points, the lead, and the influence paragraph, and I agree that the selection from that paragraph needs to be improved, for the reasons you give. Unfortunately I will barely be at the computer today; I may not be able to get to this until (possibly) late tonight, or (more likely) some time on Friday night or Saturday morning. If you would like to try a revision, that would be great; otherwise I'll work on it when I am back at the computer.  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No rush. You take a crack at it when you can, and then I'll weigh in.
 * OK, I've had a go at it; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done. And the result shows why I wanted you to take the lead on it: I could have a done a competent revision, but you've done something whose character well reflects the article as a whole.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been bouncing around the piece, copyediting, and enjoying what I both read and see. Are the charts that show Galaxy's publication dates, volume and issue numbers, and (via color code) editors adapted from similar charts in Tymm & Ashley or elsewhere, or are they of your own design? If the latter, you are to be complimented (as well as commended for your effort, in any event). The charts convey a great deal of information very efficiently, they are clear and easy to understand, and they are beautiful—models of how to present information visually.
 * Thank you very much. I'm a fan of Edward Tufte, and have three of his books on information presentation, so I'm delighted to hear that I did well.  They are my own design; the result of years of collecting sf magazines and trying to figure out easy ways to store the bibliographic data. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not surprised to learn you're a Tufte fan. I believe he'd be proud. Lovely work.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Two additional queries so far:


 * [Lede of Publication history:] "From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950. Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954." Resolved.

Are these three figures (8/20/22 more) for the United States, or the world, or do your sources not make that clear, or do they make it clear in one or two cases but not the other(s)? Based on your response, I'll propose an edit.
 * They refer to US magazines only. I have to confess these numbers worry me a little.  Ashley's appendix to volume 3 of his first set of sf histories (which I've added as a reference) is very badly organized.  Because Amazing started in April 1926, his years run April to March, so that his tabulation for the period from 1946 to 1955 has columns heading "1946/7" and so on.  It's extremely difficult to figure out how many magazines there really were in a given year.  There are eight US magazines he shows as having produced at least one issue in the column titled "1946/7"; it would take me a good half hour if you asked me to figure out whether there were really exactly eight active at any given time, or if the minimum occurred in 1946 or early 1947.  Then the 1949/50 column has 17 magazines listed, and the 1950/1 column has 25, so my guess is that when I wrote that line (which goes back at least to the article on Imagination, which was almost three years ago) I did the legwork to establish that 20 was the right number.  I can't prove it now without a lot of work, though.  Similarly, it's clear from visually scanning the table Ashley gives that the 1953/4 column represents a high point, but I would hate to have to prove those numbers are exactly right, though in this case I seem to recall that I went through the table and counted all magazines that had their first issue in that column or before, but after the 1950 column.  Any thoughts on the best way to deal with that?  I think the numbers do give a clear indication of sudden growth in the field, more so than just saying "explosive growth" or something similar. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * [Editors:] "The list below, and the charts above, follow the mastheads in the magazines." Resolved.

The list below shows that Pohl's tenure officially began with the Dec. '61 issue; the chart above shows that it officially began with the Oct. '61 issue. Please correct whichever is in error. (P.S. I see now that the text of Publication history—1960s also says December.)—DCGeist (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch; the chart was in error. I checked the original magazine to be sure.  I've uploaded a new version of the chart. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Another query:


 * I'm wondering if E. J. Gold's "semi-professional" revival of the magazine warrants a bit more coverage. I'm looking at what I believe to be the first issue's cover in your Cover layout and artwork array, and I see major names: Sheckley, Silverberg, Pohl. Are those just reprints? Is it new material, but their participation was just a one-off for the first issue, and the rest of the 1994–95 run featured almost entirely minor writers? If otherwise, a bit more on this run would be good. Speaking of minor: the text of Publication history—1970s and after identifies E. J. Gold's first issue as January–February 1994, but it appears that the cover reads simply January 1994. Please double-check the dating on this run for that text reference and the one that immediately follows, to the last issue as March–April 1995. Resolved. —DCGeist (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question first, the cover actually says "JAN/FEB 1994"; the low resolution of the cover collage won't quite let you see that. By the end of the run the cover only carried a number, but the date on the inside was still given as two months separated by a slash: "MAR/APR 1995".  As for the coverage of E.J. Gold's version of the magazine, there really isn't much in the sources about it.  (The Pohl and Silverberg are indeed reprints (isfdb.org is a good place to check on questions like that); the Sheckley appears to be new.)  Generally semiprofessional magazines have low circulation (usually below 10,000) and are not regarded as of much interest to historians of the field.  Ashley will probably provide some additional coverage in the next volume of his history of sf magazines, but last I heard (about three months ago) he was still writing it, so that won't be out till next year at the earliest.  So I don't think there's much more I can add there. Mike Christie (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Another:


 * [Publication history—1970s and after:] "Baen was successful at increasing circulation again, bringing it from 47,789 when he took over to 81,035 when he left." Resolved.

That's certainly correct as far as it goes, but an examination of the data presented in your annual circulation chart reveals something very interesting. There was a healthy circulation increase (about 18%) during Baen's first full year as editor, circulation year 1975; a modest dip (about 6%) in 1976; and then a massive jump, over 50%, in 1977. Is there any information that could explain what happened that year, or any comment available on it?—DCGeist (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, this is a real magazine-geek question (i.e. I find it interesting but I wasn't sure anyone else would so I left the gory details out of the article). The circulation figures published refer to a 12 month period ending usually about six months before the cover date.  They give total paid circulation for the average of all issues in that 12 month period, and they also give the circulation of the single issue closest to the filing date.  Here's the data for those four years:
 * Feb 75 statement: filed 1 Oct 74. Single issue 48,726; avg 47,789.  (73-74 data)
 * Feb 76 statement: filed 1 Oct 75. Single issue 46,279; avg 56,361.  (74-75 data)
 * Apr 77 statement: filed 1 Oct 76. Single issue 63,200; avg 52,831.  (75-76 data)
 * Jan 78 statement: filed 1 Oct 77. Single issue 87,032; avg 81,035.  (76-77 data)
 * If the filing date was 1 Oct, the most recent issue for which circulation could have been obtained was probably the July issue. So this is really an August to July year.  Baen became editor in June 1974, but his story selections are unlikely to have started to show up till about the December issue.  So the 47,789 is the year before him; the next year is the first one he could have had an impact on, though for about the first half of that year (August to December 1974) the stories were selected by his predecessor.  If I had to interpret these numbers, I'd say that he appears to have had trouble really impressing the readership for the first year or so, but then readership took off no later than the summer of 1976 and grew very fast after that.
 * Having said all that, the short answer to your question is that there is no more detailed commentary available on this. I have to say that the average is probably the number to look at, and that the difference between 56,361 and 52, 831 might just be statistical noise; the big jump is to 81,035. I think, looked at that way, that that's exactly what Ashley is commenting on here -- the big jump to 81,035.  He only gives the 47,789 number because it's the number preceding Baen's involvement; the impressive transition is from 52,831 to 81,035.
 * Does that answer your question? Mike Christie (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A thought concerning the discussion you had about the artwork section with hamiltonstone:


 * You wrote in that discussion, "I agree the artwork section is too short; I had real trouble finding good sources for that material -- everything I found talks generally about the artists rather than specifically about their work for Galaxy." It seems to me that as Emshwiller's and Gaughan's work appeared regularly in Galaxy, presumably coming to characterize its "look" (and even "feel"), it would certainly be appropriate to add descriptions of what was generally notable about each artist's style, assuming that exists among the available commentary. Resolved. —DCGeist (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I went back through di Fate's Infinite Worlds and didn't find much I could use, though I did see a comment that Emsh did much of his best color work for Galaxy. I added that, and expanded the note on his Hugos to mention the later awards, but that's all I could find.  Di Fate says e.g. that Gaughan has a "compelling" vision, but I don't think that sort of generality is worth including. Mike Christie (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Another art-related observation:


 * This came up as a result of my having been struck by Galaxys remarkable title typeface. You refer to it in passing in Cover layout and artwork, but I wanted to see if I could track down the name of the typeface and/or of its designer, or indeed determine if it was designed specifically for Galaxy. (OR parenthetical: Surely it was, don't you think?) I did not succeed in this effort (which occupied about 15 minutes of Googling and Google Booking), but in milking a Google Book snippet view, I came up with this observation from Ashley's History of the Science Fiction Magazine: 1956-1965: Galaxys industry-leading 192 pages "did not automatically mean Galaxy had more wordage than the others since it also used a larger typeface and was liberally sprinkled with illustrations" (p. 37). I'm not certain it's noteworthy that Galaxy led the industry at 192 pages, because it went to that length when it went bimonthly in 1959 and I believe its leading competitors were monthly at the time—so over the course of a year, it would have had fewer pages. But, the "liberally sprinkled with illustrations" comment is something else again. This suggests that Galaxy was more illustration-heavy than its competitors. That is noteworthy.  Resolved. —DCGeist (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll respond further on this tomorrow or Saturday, but a quick comment: the title typeface was designed by Frank Conley -- it's not mentioned in the main text (which is probably why you missed it) but is covered by note 1. More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had not thoroughly perused the notes yet, so I missed it. And my point search word in Google Booking was "typeface" so I missed the ref, which explains Conley "lettered logos". Indeed.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be right that Ashley's comment (which I'd missed) implies that Galaxy had more illustrations than the competition, but I have to say I'd be nervous about drawing that conclusion in the article based on that source. Unless I phrase it more explicitly than Ashley does, it doesn't seem worth mentioning; and such a rephrasing seems to me to be stretching what the source says.  One other point: Ashley gives, in Transformations, a table showing price, page count, wordage and words per 1 cent for a dozen sf magazines in 1959.  This is in the context of discussing Galaxy's change to bimonthly that year, and the changes in page count and price; Ashley shows that the changes decreased the wordage readers got for each cent they paid.  In other words, the change to 192 pages that you mention is really part of Guinn's restructuring for increased profitability. It's covered in the article, at the end of the "Origins and 1950s" section, but I didn't go into details and give the comparative figures, as Ashley does -- even a magazine geek has to draw the line somewhere.  The bibliographic section does give a quick summary of the page count changes in the "Other bibliographic details" section. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I copyedited your fine revision of the lede's third graf. This, in the lede's second graf, also needs a rewrite:


 * "Under Jakobsson and his successors the magazine declined in quality..." Resolved.

As noted above, there was a substantial jump in circulation under Baen, Jakobsson's immediate successor. Circulation increases don't necessarily correspond with quality improvements, but we do find this in the main text: "Jakobsson's successor, James Baen, was able to publish some high-quality fiction" and "Baen raised the level of the magazine substantially, and critic Mike Ashley refers to his editorship as Galaxy's 'Indian summer.'"—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've modified the lead to address this; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've addressed the above matters as best as possible given the sources. I still have yet to work my way through the main body of Contents and reception, which I'll be able to do late Sunday or Monday.

One query I forgot to raise:


 * [Publication history—Origins and 1950s:] "Gold made efforts to improve the quality of the printing techniques..." Resolved.

This is in a discussion of the magazine's launch, so "improved" compared to what? The norm for other sf magazines? The norm for World Editions? For genre magazines in general?—DCGeist (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gold wanted the magazine to capture the Saturday Evening Post readers; and he wanted it to look sophisticated because he wanted it to be sophisticated. One thing he worked hard to get was Kromekote paper for the covers, a glossy paper that allowed much better reproduction; another was the production process, mentioned in the Contents and reception section, which enabled more complex page layouts.  These things would have distinguished Galaxy from its competition in the sf field, but Gold didn't want to just be different from Astounding; he wanted to look as much as possible like a slick.  So I'd say "the norm for other sf magazines" is most of it, but perhaps the comparison is not the best way to go.  How about "Gold made efforts to implement high-quality printing techniques"? Mike Christie (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. I've made an edit on that basis.—DCGeist (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This sentence needs a thoughtful rewrite:


 * [Contents and reception—1950s:] "The first six issues contained stories by well-known authors, a few of which became highly regarded, but by April 1951 the magazine was consistently publishing issues including at least one story of real quality." Resolved.

"Real" quality as opposed to what? How have we determined that from April 1951 there was at least one such story in each issue, but that the "highly regarded" stories by "well-known authors" in the first six issues...what? Somehow didn't quite qualify as "real" quality? Or, there wasn't one in every single one of the first six issues...but after that there was one in every single issue? Perhaps the point you're getting at is that from the beginning, the magazine contained stories by well-known authors, a few of which became highly regarded. Then, according to X, beginning with the April 1951 issue, there was a marked leap in overall quality, with almost every issue including a story that would become widely acclaimed.—DCGeist (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to answer this is to quote the source I was using here. Tymn and Ashley say that Gold "made it clear that his early numbers were to be considered experimental and subject to reader approval", and later "Volume 2 (April - September 1951) began to reflect the impact of reader responses to Gold's appeals ... By this time the quality of the fiction throughout each issue had been improved, achieving the consistency associated with a leading publication but rarely achieved in the genre.  There were few of the filler-calibre stories by big names that appeared in the earlier numbers ... It was rare that a number of Galaxy did not print a work with subsequent staying power."  These quotes are pulled from a page's worth of discussion, in the midst of which Tymn & Ashley singles out Leiber's "Coming Attraction" (Nov 50) and "The Fireman" (Feb 51) as worthy of notice.  They also list the names of the early contributors: Asimov, Simak, MacLean, Matheson, Sturgeon, Leiber, Bradbury; they don't say these are listed because they're well-known -- I assume they feel it's obvious.  The sentence you quote was my attempt to summarize that in a single line -- I used "a few" rather than "two" because they don't actually say that "The Fireman" and "Coming Attraction" are the only top-notch stories.  Sorry, long answer to a short question again -- I hope that's useful. Mike Christie (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I did an edit based on the sourced quotation you provided here (the edit involved moving some material down from the first paragraph of the sub-section to avoid repetition and make the relevant passage more specific). But I have to tell you, looking at exactly when things were published and scanning the contents of these early issues in ISFDB, it strikes me that—average quality (i.e., "consistency") aside—more stories with a lasting reputation were published in volume 1 than volume 2. Take a look for yourself—if you agree, the language should probably be tweaked a bit further (while not violating the substance of the cited sources, of course).


 * My perception could be wrong. As it stands, though, we currently have four "high quality" examples from vol. 1 and just one from vol. 2 (and even that example, Puppet Masters is hardly ideal—only one of its three parts appeared in vol. 2, in September 1951, the volume's last issue). If the existing language is going to be retained, we should have a couple more examples for vol. 2, stories whose "subsequent staying power" can be cited to your current sources or ones to be added.—DCGeist (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is tricky. Looking through the second volume, I would add at least "Marching Morons", "Beyond Bedlam" and "Cabin Boy" to the list of memorable stories; I added the first to the article because Tymn and Ashley mention it.  Scanning the first volume only gave me "To Serve Man", which is good but kind of a gimmick story, though it is fondly remembered.  So I think the perception that the second volume is better is justified.  However, the survey pieces I am using as sources don't cite these as examples, and though I could probably find positive reviews of those stories elsewhere I hesitate to use them -- to be confident I wasn't misrepresenting I'd have to check for reviews of all the stories and that would be verging on original research.  Do you feel that adding "Marching Morons" provides enough weight to the argument that it can stay? Mike Christie (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The resulting ratio of 3-2 was obviously much better than 4-1, but making it 3-all, I added Beyond Bedlam, whose importance was easy to verify and source. And it adds a new author—building the web! (By the way, in an attempt to establish a consistent style quote mark vs. italic style, I applied italics for any work of fiction of "novella" length or longer—Beyond Bedlam and The Dragon Masters being the two instances of novellas mentioned in the article, I believe.)—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK with me. WP:MOSTITLE says books should be in italics and short stories in quotes; I think that leaves novellas in the grey area. Mike Christie (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Galaxy titles grid.png - it seems like a wikitable would be much more readable than this.  Jujutacular  talk 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a pretty complicated table, but I'm willing to be convinced. An editor at a previous FAC created a wikitable version of the issues grid, but I don't think it looked as good as the graphic.  If someone can create one, and there's a consensus that it looks at least as readable as the graphic, then sure, but I haven't done enough work on wikitables to feel that's something I could guarantee. Mike Christie (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose until this is done: I created the first two rows: User:Jujutacular/Sandbox which clearly shows this would be more readable. See Help:Table for how to construct it, it should be pretty straightforward.  Jujutacular  talk 21:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support  Jujutacular  talk 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

While the wikitable is certainly readable, I think the graphic looked much better and presents the information in a manner that is more likely to attract and reward close study. It's also dumbfounding that anyone would even think to oppose promotion of an article to FA status over such a matter, which, among other things, is outside the criteria.—DCGeist (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FAs follow the manual of style: WP:MOS.  Jujutacular  talk 04:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only borderline relative to that clause of the guideline: One could well regard the grid as explicating a variation whose importance is as much visual as textual. I would, in fact, argue that the effect of the visual variation is more to the point here than is the substance of the textual variation. Even granting, hypothetically, the opposing perspective, I continue to find it very, very surprising that anyone would regard this element of the MOS as so essential that they would feel compelled to oppose promotion of an article to FA status over it and it alone.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent article, well-written, with meticulous sourcing throughout. Very well-done. The attention to detail is quite appreciated by the reader, with the created bar-graph and issue-charts. Reading this article makes me want to go and do more research on the topic, and go and read more science fiction from this publication and this period. Hopefully the article will accomplish this task for other visitors in the future that read it, as well. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike, has there been an image review yet? (sorry if I missed it). Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not yet. Mike Christie (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Query:


 * [Contents and reception—1950s (note 12):] "Serialized in four parts, from June to September 1955." Resolved.

You provide the number of parts and the precise dates for this one serialization, Preferred Risk, but for no others. Unless there is a particularly compelling reason to set this one apart—which would need to be articulated in the text—this information should be provided in every serialization case, or none.—DCGeist (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it; I think it's excessive detail, and the isfdb index linked in the footnotes allows readers to go find this sort of information if they are interested. Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Query:


 * It appears you name comprehensively, or nearly so, the Hugo- and then also Nebula-winning stories and serializations that appeared in the magazine in its earliest years and then in much of the 1960s and 1970s. But no such stories are mentioned for the nine-year span 1953–61, supposedly part of the magazine's prime (allowing for a slight dip at the end of Gold's tenure). Did Galaxy in fact publish no award-winning stories during this period? Resolved. —DCGeist (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there were no Hugos in 1954, and no fiction Hugos in 1957. Astounding swept the fiction awards in 1955 and 1956; there were only two short fiction categories, so that means only two stories each year.  There was only one short fiction award in 1958, and it was won by Or All The Seas With Oysters, by Avram Davidson, which had appeared in Galaxy.  Prior to 1959 there was no nominating round, so there are no "also ran" lists for those years.  In 1959 there were two short fiction categories; Galaxy had a weak year, with no short fiction nominations and one novel nomination, but no awards; Astounding and 'F&SF' stories dominated the lists. In both 1960 and 1961 there was one short fiction category, with a total of five nominees from 'F&SF', two from Astounding, and one from Beyond Fantasy Fiction.  The article does say that the quality dipped at the end of Gold's editorship, and I think the 1959 to 1961 results show that.  So the limited data for 1954 to 1958 score as four awards for Astounding, one for Galaxy, and none for anyone else -- too small a sample to prove anything but not terribly embarrassing. Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would definitely add the Davidson. And, my friend, I must direct your attention to Leiber's Hugo-winning The Big Time (Galaxy: March and April 1958). I would definitely add that as well. You might also consider adding Hugo nominee Immortality, Inc./Time Killer by Sheckley (Galaxy: October, November, and December 1958 and February 1959) ((which happened to lose out, in my opinion, to one of the ten, maybe the five, greatest science fiction novels ever)).—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the two winners; I didn't add the Sheckley -- particularly for the 1950s I think it would be misleading to talk about nominees, since they weren't recorded till 1959. (And I agree with you that Case of Conscience is up near the top of the list.) Mike Christie (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist, I think I've responded to all your comments now, but there are a lot (thank you!) and I might have missed some. Let me know if anything else needs a response. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Query:


 * As this process has brought up the Hugo history, I took a look at the record of the Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine. And while I have no trouble believing that many major writers at the time and many historians in retrospect regard Galaxy as the most important sf magazine of the mid- and late 1950s (until its dip began in, say, 1959), that was not reflected in the Hugos:


 * No pertinent Hugo in 1954 (for publication year 1953)
 * Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine, 1955–57 (for publication years 1954–56): all Astounding
 * Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine, 1958–59 (for publication years 1957–58): both F&SF


 * This must be addressed in either Contents and reception—Mid- and late 1950s or Influence on the field (probably the former, as you address the magazine's comparable failure to win the Hugo during Pohl's tenure in the comparable chronological subsection). At present, the article essentially gives the impression that "everyone knew" Galaxy was the leading magazine in the field during most of this period. But, for all the vagaries and conservatism of institutional award givers such as the World Science Fiction Society, their judgment is inarguably significant historically. Perhaps a little more research might be in order to put Galaxy's failure to win the Hugo during this five-year stretch of its "field-leading" prime in the proper and most informative perspective. This may well be—probably is—like Martin Scorsese never winning the Academy Award for Best Director during his magnificent, enormously influential prime (though Galaxy did share the Hugo with Astounding in 1953—a line that called for editing)...and just like that, this needs to be addressed head-on. Resolved. —DCGeist (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added something to address this; Tymn and Ashley cover this very point. Mike Christie (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I restructured this subsection a bit for chronology (including consolidating all the 1952 info into this subsection) and other structural issues. I think both this and the preceding subsection now have stronger endings. No information was lost in this copyediting process and, in fact, not much actual rewriting was done—mostly a sequential shuffle.—DCGeist (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Query:


 * [Publication history:] "Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; according to sf historian and critic Mike Ashley, its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954." Resolved.

Okay, it looks like there was reason to worry about this hard-to-source figure, or rather its presentation, which appears to be inadvertently misleading insofar as it suggests that 1954 was a high-water mark for the field. In researching the issue above, I found in Ashley's Transformations: "The blight settled over the comic-book field during 1954 and 1955 in the wake of the Wertham report. The effect toppled over into the pulp field" (p. 72); "The end of 1955 saw the American sf magazine market at its lowest ebb since the end of the Second World War. There were only eleven magazines that had survived the blight..." (p. 73). I don't know if this requires a drastic change, but it definitely calls for a shift in emphasis.—DCGeist (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing the numbers if the sourcing is a concern, but I don't think the quote you give is actually in contradiction. If 1954 is the year in which a negative effect begins, then the peak should be some time in 1954 -- perhaps early in the year, of course.  I think the early 1950s is definitely a boom: the Nicholls article on "SF Magazines" gives a partial list of magazines launched each year from 1950 through 1957, with the following totals:
 * 1950 - 6
 * 1951 - 2
 * 1952 - 5
 * 1953 - 6
 * 1954 - 1
 * 1955 - 1
 * 1956 - 3
 * 1957 - 3
 * This doesn't include magazines already mentioned in the article, which means Galaxy should be added; that adds one to the 1950 total. This is a partial list even then (which is why it doesn't add to 22), but I think is useful, and I don't think this is in conflict with the quote you give from Transformations. Mike Christie (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pondering... Back to you in a few hours on this.—DCGeist (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a clause to the end of the Publication history lede that takes care of it as far as I'm concerned. See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of interest:


 * I wanted to see if I could find any description of how the editorial policies of Galaxy and the award-winning If differed, if at all, under Pohl. The only thing I found was this, from 1964, which suggests there was no evident difference besides If's comparative "weakness on the non-fiction side": http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Galaxy+itself+runs+to+almost+200+pages%22&btnG=Search+Books (the actual search string I used produced a link so long, it screwed this page up.) I'm not sure if that point is worth making in the article, but you might find the general characterization of Galaxy at the time useful.—DCGeist (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting find. I think the specific comment would be worth adding from a more authoritative source, but the sf book review columns of non-sf magazines can be rather haphazard as places to get reliable critical feedback.  New Scientist is a significant magazine and would be a better choice than many magazines, but I've never heard of Fred Wheeler and I'm a bit reluctant to use this. Mike Christie (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I read and enjoyed this and find it meets the FA criteria. All of the images except for File:Galaxy cover layouts.jpg are free, and I think it meets the Fair Use criteria. I have a few quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
 * This may be British English vs. American English but At its peak, Galaxy was greatly influential on the science fiction field. sounds odd. I can see either "had a great inluence on the science fiction field" or "was greatly influential in the science fiction field"
 * Good point; fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the direct quotations in the lead have references?
 * I added two but left the single quoted word uncited; I could just remove it, or cite it if you think it's necessary. It's the same citation as for the other Kyle quote. Mike Christie (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with no ref for a single word, especially when it is already cited. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the issues and editors grids have keys to the colors? So "Issues of Galaxy from 1960 to 1969, showing volume/issue number. Issues are color-coded to show when each editor was in charge; the editorship passed from H.L. Gold (blue) to Frederik Pohl (yellow) and then to Ejler Jakobsson (purple) during the 1960s.[5]"
 * I don't think this is necessary. I tried to phrase the captions so that I wouldn't have to do this.  If there's a consensus to change this I'd be fine with it but I think it's more natural to just tell the reader the sequence and let them look. Mike Christie (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A query re images: I originally intended to do the image review but then found it too complicated. My main query is this: while the magazine's copyright in the cover (File:Galaxy1.jpg) of its first issue may have lapsed, I'm not sure that is the case for the artwork that is reproduced on that cover - i thought the copyright in that remained with the artist and remained valid until 70 years after their death. So I had a doubt about whether it could truly be free, and was not sure how to address this question. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on this, but a data point might be useful: is the place I go to look for copyright renewals.  Searching for Emshwiller brings up 30 results, one of which is Ed Emshwiller renewing the illustration on the cover of a book.  So whether the copyright is in the artist's name, or belongs to the publisher, it should have been renewed under one name or the other.  I can't find evidence of a renewal under either name. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a sufficient expert on copyright to answer this. I also assume the 1st issue cover art copyright needed to be renewed and was not. The image that shows multiple covers needs to be reviewed by an image expert, though I repeat that I am satisfied it meets the Fair Use requirements. I assume the original issue back cover is free since the copyright was not renewed, and the remaining images (grids and graphs) were all user generated and are free. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Media review: The article includes seven image files. Four are public domain charts created by the nominator that graphically represent publicly available and noncopyrightable information. The other three files are:
 * File:Galaxy1.jpg: Commons image of first issue's front cover, used as main infobox image.
 * License: PD-US-NOT RENEWED. Well-evidenced. It is clear that copyright registration of this issue of the magazine as a whole was not renewed, as then necessary to maintain copyright status, in its 28th year. There is also a question about the status of the artwork by David Stone that constitutes much of the substance of the image. Given the sourced description in the article that "in the 1950s and 1960s, Galaxy retained the original artwork sent in by its artists," it is virtually certain that the magazine contracted for art on a work-for-here rather than licensed basis and that copyright to the art thus resided with the publisher and was covered by the copyright registration (and the renewal or non-renewal thereof) of the magazine as a whole. Even if that was for some reason not the case in this particular instance, a search of U.S. Copyright Office records reveals no evidence that Stone renewed copyright registration, if any, on the work in its 28th year.
 * Quality: Professional.


 * File:GalaxyOct50rearcover.jpg: Wikipedia-hosted free image of first issue's rear cover.
 * License: PD-US-NOT RENEWED. Well-evidenced. Again, it is clear that copyright registration of this issue of the magazine as a whole was not renewed, as then necessary to maintain copyright status, in its 28th year. The nature of the anonymously written editorial text, headlined "You'll Never See It in Galaxy", makes it almost certain that it was provided to the magazine by its staff or a freelancer on a work-for-hire basis. Even if that was for some reason not the case in this particular instance, a search of U.S. Copyright Office records reveals no evidence that anyone renewed copyright registration, if any, on a text titled "You'll Never See It in Galaxy".
 * Quality: Professional.


 * File:113355527 25c7280cc7 b.jpg: Montage of front covers of nine issue of the magazine (fair use).
 * Usage: Good—shows the substantial changes in the magazine's cover design, supporting and explicating the well-sourced discussion thereof. As an additional benefit to the reader, show examples of the magazine's artwork from across its entire history, again supporting the sourced discussion of that topic.
 * Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: A fine piece of research that captures the peculiar magic of those old science-fiction digests.—DCGeist (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


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