Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Science Fantasy (magazine)/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 15:20, 6 May 2011.

Science Fantasy (magazine)

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Science Fantasy was one of the mainstays of British science fiction for seventeen years, from 1950 to 1967. It helped launched the careers of Michael Moorcock and J.G. Ballard, and is also remembered as a showcase for the less famous Thomas Burnett Swann, an American author of historical fantasies. Unfortunately the covers are probably still copyrighted, so I have only been able to include a low-resolution montage showing the layout changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * I believe today's edition of WP:MOSDASH calls for unspaced endashes between months of the same year
 * Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names or not
 * ISBN for Harbottle & Holland?
 * Be consistent in whether second authors/editors are listed first or last name first
 * Where is San Bernadino? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review - unfortunately, I think you're going to need to provide copyright info for each of the pictured covers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They are all still under copyright as far as I know; I'm using this as my guide, which means 70 years after the death of the author. I've added a note to that effect in the file; does that suffice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so. The only thing you might do (if possible) would be to check whether copyright was retained by the artists or whether it's held by the publisher. Either way they're still fair-use for quite a while, so it's not a big deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know any way to tell, unfortunately. Thanks for both the image and source reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're effectively using a gallery of ten separate non-free images here. Combining them into one file does not get around that. I really think you need to cut down the number of images you're using here. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I really would like to be able to illustrate the comment about the layout. Is there any way to do that with non-free images?  Obviously there are no alternatives, and I could shrink the images a bit more if it would help.  The only other way to legitimately include a cover image would be to include issue 3, about which there is a specific comment -- would that be acceptable, if the layout images are not? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where is the comment on the layout? I can see comments on the artistic style, but not the layout. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right, I wasn't thinking straight when I posted that comment. Currently the only commentary on the layout is in the summary of the image page itself.  What I should have said was that without the image page, I'd have to describe the layout changes in the article: something like "The initial cover layout included a footer which was removed for the third issue; the seventh issue added a white title bar, and from issue 33 this was moved to the right hand side.  From issue 55 to the end of the digest period the cover illustrations were monochrome, though issues 62 and 64 had no cover illustration at all.  Issue 65, the first in the new paperback format, saw a revised cover layout and font; the font was changed again for issue 69.  The layout was slightly redesigned when the magazine was retitled Impulse; and from issue 6 of Impulse the letters "sf" were added before the title."  Of course I could add this to the caption as it stands, and that would provide commentary, but I was really hoping that the images would suffice as commentary -- essentially as illustration.  Thinking about it now I can see that that's not what fair use is about, but I would like to give the reader the layout change information one way or another.  Is there any way to use images to do that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to this request, IMHO the image in question is cv as its a derivative work of multiple copyright images, It is illegal to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. I'd suggest that the editions that have coverage within the text should be seperate images, given the way the article is written I believe there would be ample justification for as many 4 without concern (covers as per image desc #1(first edition),#9,#10(Name chages) and #3(issue 7 which is specifically covered in ..this disruption caused extended delays in the appearance of the seventh issue.[1][5])) though any more would be pushing even the fair use envelope Gnangarra 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review -- I have switched out the image for an image of the third issue. I suppose I could use others too, but I think it's fine just to use this one, which there is direct commentary on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The tables with titles "Issues of Science Fantasy..." are png. Is it possible to use wiki/html tables instead?
 * I don't think it's possible to have tables that text can flow around, as can be done with images. I have used tables before where that wasn't an issue -- see Galaxy Science Fiction, for example, which has some pngs and a table.  I'd be happy to change these to tables if that problem is solvable, but without that I think it would make the layout quite ugly.  As it is I've tried to make sure that the information in the tables is also in the text, so that the tables are just a visual aid, and are not necessary for comprehension. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've asked about this issue at Village_pump_%28technical%29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See Help:Table. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (P.S. this is an archived section ... does that mean it is no longer an active nomination?)
 * I've converted the first table, adding footnotes for the underlining as well as issue 7. This has made the table quite large. It would seem to me to be a good idea therefore to change the group "notes" to "n" or "fn", but this would require consistent changes in the rest of the article. Alternatively, those footnotes could be removed, if the data really is in the text on the left. I commented out the image for the original caption. --Izno (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Add a row at the bottom of the table (across all columns) with the text "notes" and put the references in there. This is a feature common to a lot of infoboxes, though few people take advantage of it, though I am one of those who do. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a solution, but one which is unsemantic, which is why I did not suggest it. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if you indicate the information being referenced; consider it an additional dimension - the table presents one slice, the reference set a second. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're to consider them different dimensions, then semantic HTML indicates that we should have two separate tables, which is surely even worse than how it was. I think it would be simpler to indicate the information in the prose rather than attempt to stuff it in some way into the table. --Izno (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers and example; I've reverted for now and created a sandbox to test this in; I'd like to try out a few things. Ceyockey, the FAC is still open -- the "archive" is just part of the naming convention for active FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Checking your sandbox, you should not use smaller text for accessibility reasons nor should you set the background color of the styled table if at all possible (largely for the same reason). Obviously, setting the background of a few cells makes sense to keep consistent with the given tables. Ideally, you should also not use "bgcolor" as that is a deprecated attribute in html, nor should the use of "&lt;u>" be used, for being deprecated element in html. --Izno (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the text size that I'm after so much as generally compressing it to the same relative size that the image took up. One of the benefits of the image is the ability to have it visible at different scales -- large scale if you click through, smaller in the thumbnail.  I understand that that gives a separate accessibility problem for visually impaired users.
 * I'll post a couple of lines below on what I would like the image or table to accomplish. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please post link to sandbox being used for reformat testing. Thanks --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's at User:Mike_Christie/Sandbox4; I've made a few changes but would still like to reduce the vertical cell height, increase the space around the table (the text wraps very closely), get all the column widths identical, bold the header row and left hand column, and possibly move the caption to below the table. I suspect it's not possible to use dashed lines instead of solid lines but if it is I'd like to try that -- I like the weaker visual separation of the cells that that provides. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there are a lot of different features of the image/table under discussion, and many are intentional, here's what the goal is for the article. I think this is complete but this list can be tweaked if there is a discussion needed.
 * Visual display showing the viewer when issues were released, by year and month/season.
 * The pattern communicates directly to the viewer the relative frequency by year -- is it being published more or less frequently each year.
 * Colour (or other visual means) of indicating who the editor was for each issue
 * Distinguish issues named by month from those named by season
 * Record the volume and issue number

Then for visual presentation or aesthetic purposes I would like the following things to be true:
 * Bolding or equivalent visual distinction between the first column and row and the body of the table/image. The current table also has shading which I am in two minds about; I think it's unnecessary but does serve this purpose.
 * Weaken the cell boundaries for aesthetic reasons; the contents of each cell form a connected series and loosening the boundaries helps visually reinforce that.
 * The text flow around the image/table should have about as much white space as is seen when an image is used.
 * Consistent column widths -- there is no semantic difference in the columns so I would like them the same width, in order to be visually neutral
 * Caption below -- this is what readers expect.
 * Vertical cell height -- the current table has a good deal of unnecessary white space that I would like to get rid of

Finally for accessibility:
 * All the information should be accessible to someone visually impaired or colour-blind

I suspect not all of these goals can be easily achieved at the same time. I have addressed the accessibility issue by putting all the information in the article as well as the table, so a visually impaired reader is not missing any information (though I just realized I hadn't put in some of the volume details in the text; I've now added them). The table/image is intended specifically as a visual aid, not as the only means of communication of this information.

Thanks for the help on this, by the way -- I would be glad to find a way to improve these images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to be a little quicker to make guesses and a little slower to ask questions than careful copy editors should. Please check my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All look good; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "down to 1/6 from 2/-": pounds and shillings? And there are more of these in Bibliographic details.
 * I've linked the first occurrence to here; does that cover it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know, I've only recently started paying attention to questions like this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's easier if a price change over time is described with the prices in chronological order. You'd have to be over 40 years old and living in Britain to have experienced '1/6'. I think it's worth having a conversion within the body (perhaps this is a WP-wide style issue). Thus I recommend changing "bring the cover price down to 1/6 from 2/-" to 'reduce the price from 2/- (10 p) to 1/6 (7.5 p)'. Lightmouse (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I have changed to your phrasing and added a link to £sd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good luck with the article. Lightmouse (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "New Worlds, Nova's flagship title, and Science Fantasy were also suffering from poor sales, with circulation estimated at about 5,000, though a switch from bimonthly to a monthly schedule was also considered that year for Science Fantasy.": I'm not getting the connection between the two parts of the sentence.
 * A magazine tends to go to monthly if it's doing well, and drop back to monthly bimonthly if it's doing poorly. It's rather surprising that a switch to monthly was considered if the circulation was as bad as it appears to have been.  Is there a better way to make that clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any information on why a switch was considered, or when it was anticipated? Anyone can "consider" anything; if that's all I have, I generally leave it out. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The August 1963 editorial said "we are planning on making Science Fantasy a monthly publication as soon as possible", so it went beyond consideration to an announcement to the readership. I don't have a source to support a statement about the inconsistency between this announcement and the falling circulation, but it's hardly controversial so would it be OK for me to insert an explanation, perhaps in a note? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. I had a stomachache tonight so I may have missed things. If someone has a chance to check the spellings to make sure they're all BritEng, that would help. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My BritEng is a bit faded so I agree it would be helpful if someone else could check. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support An interesting and enjoyable read which meets the FA criteria. I have a few nitpicky suggestions which do not detract from my support.
 * Per WP:LEAD shouldn't the other titles in the lead be in bold type too?
 * Yes, and mentioned earlier, I think; I've added a clause and bolded the titles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Link fanzine?
 * Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tighten? ''but Gillings had accumulated a substantial inventory of stories—enough to fill nine issues before the first one had even appeared .[4]
 * Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect most readers today will not be familiar with the old British currency system, so perhaps link the first price in ..in order to cut costs and bring the cover price down to 1/6 from 2/-. to the £sd article?
 * This was commented on above -- I've added a link and also converted to modern currency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Say that this was originally an American magazine? In 1958, Nova decided to launch a British reprint of [the American magazine] Science Fiction Adventures, under the same title.?
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
 * The Stainless Steel Rat Wants You! to wikilink Harry Harrison ;-) (please?)
 * Done -- it was linked lower down but for some reason I missed the earlier occurrence; now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with yet more comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The titles were acquired by Roberts & Vinter, who hired Kyril Bonfiglioli as editor" - editor for both titles?
 * Clarified, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikilink fanzine in lead? Might also remove "as a department" in the same sentence
 * Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "the final year of Impulse, as it was titled by that time" - didn't you say earlier that the final issues of the magazine were under the title SF Impulse? Or do you mean the last year that it was titled Impulse?
 * Well, I was trying to avoid a complicated locution; I wanted to refer to the last year of the magazine, without worrying the reader at that stage in the lead with the slightly varying title. Is that OK or does it need to be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd probably just go with "the last year of the magazine". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there an article that "paper rationing" could link to?
 * Done; not a great article yet but it seems to be the right target. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Continental Daily Mail has no article, could you indicate where it's from (I'm assuming it's a newspaper)?
 * I think this is an early name for the Daily Mail, but I can't be sure (and that article is no help) so I am reluctant to link. I figure it's a case where the eventual filling in of the redlink will solve the problem. I dug about a bit in Google books but can't prove the equivalence yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a bit more research and found that this is a European edition of the Daily Mail, so I added a note to that article and linked it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maclaren or Mclarens?
 * The former in the source, and I think I'm consistent in the article -- did I miss something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The acquisition of Nova Publications by Mclarens gave Carnell access to the publishing facilities of a well-established company"? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks for spotting that; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.