Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unknown (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 01:20, 16 April 2011.

Unknown (magazine)

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A pulp magazine launched in 1939, Unknown was one of the most influential fantasy magazines ever published. It was a companion to Astounding Science Fiction during the Golden Age of Science Fiction, and introduced the rigour of good science fiction plotting to the world of fantasy. Historian Mike Ashley believes that the modern genre of fantasy was founded by Unknown, which is remarkable because it only lasted for four years. It was one of the few pulp magazines aimed at a mature and intelligent readership, and the memoirs of long time science fiction fans and authors are full of laments for its passing in 1943, a victim of wartime paper shortages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Science Fiction, Fantasy and Weird Fiction Magazines" or "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Weird Fiction Magazines"?
 * The former; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Missing bibliographic information for Campbell
 * Added, and I've changed it to be "Chapdelaine", who is the primary editor of the letters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Westport is in the right state now ;-), but where is Garden City? If it's in the US, could you provide a state?
 * NY -- added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source review; I think everything is fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the lowercase "sf" a standard abbreviation, because I don't remember seeing it in your other articles, which I believe use "sci-fi".—indopug (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a standard abbreviation; one sees "SF" as well, but the main reference work in the field, the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, uses "sf", so I prefer that. If you take a look at the last few articles I've brought to FAC, such as Startling Stories, Planet Stories, and Fantastic Adventures, I've used "sf".  "Sci-fi" is actually regarded as pejorative within the field, and you'll never see it in a scholarly work or good quality reference work, so I don't think it would be a good idea to use that. I realized after your comment that I hadn't introduced the abbreviation, so tweaked it a little to introduce it on first use in the body of the article.  Thanks for the copyedit, by the way! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Comments Support: Another interesting magazine history. I have a few mainly minor issues:-
 * Link werewolves in lead
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Avoid repetition of "forced" in third para of lead
 * Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the background relating to Weird Tales should be briefly mentioned in the lead, as an important originating factor in the eventual development of Unknown
 * Good idea; I've had a go at this; it required a bit of fiddling. Let me know if you think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused in the background section, by the fact that Weird Tales and Astounding Stories both appear to be leaders "in the field" at the the same time. My initial understanding was that Astounding followed Weird Tales as leader, but then I read that in 1938: "Weird Tales was still the leader in its genre. Can you clarify?
 * Astounding was the leading sf magazine; Weird Tales was the leading fantasy magazine. I've tried to clarify this; see what you think now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wartime paper shortages": Hmmm, the US wasn't at war before December 1941. Was there another reason for the paper shortage?
 * Well, the sources all say this without further explanation. I might actually be able to dig up a mention in an editorial in the magazine itself, if that would help, but I assume that the state of war elsewhere and the impact on shipping.  I don't know what the direct impact of WW2 was on the U.S.'s economy in 1940 and 1941. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This continued to bother me after I wrote the above; it just seemed odd. I went back to the sources and discovered I'd been misreading a key sentence in the main source I used; the paper shortages are blamed for the demise of the magazine overall, not specifically for the switch to bimonthly.  I've made the necessary changes.  Thank you for pointing me at this; it was a real error. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Contents and reception: The colon after "water gnome" should be a semicolon. I would recommend a slight rewording of the latter part of that sentence: '"Trouble with Water" was a more accurate indication than Sinister Barrier of the direction Unknown would take.'
 * Yes, much better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clareson" needs identification at first mention in the text
 * Oops. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The cover art came almost entirely from artists who did not contribute to many other magazines;" This reads awkwardly, and "almost entirely" seems like an exaggeration. Could you not say, more simply: "The cover art came mainly from little-known artists;...etc"? Do the little-known artists really need redlinks?
 * This was badly phrased on my part; what I should have said is that these artists did not contribute much to sf and fantasy magazines. Gladney, for example, was a fairly popular pulp artist.  I checked Robert Weinberg's A Biographical Dictionary of Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists, which is quite good at mentioning the careers outside fantasy and sf of the artists it covers, and it has an entry for all of them but Islip, so I unlinked him.  I think the others could definitely become articles at some point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly worried by inclusion in the text of phrases like "widely regarded" and "most lamented". As they are not parts of quotations, they read like an editorial view. Perhaps the wording should be reconsidered to preserve the overall neutrality of tone?
 * I take your point, but this magazine does attract superlatives in the sources, and I wanted to reflect that -- the paragraph would be quite unlike any other coverage of the magazine in secondary sources if it did not make it clear just how high its reputation is. The point I would like to get across to the reader is really that it is not just Ashley, or Edwards, that thinks so highly of the magazine.  What if I leave the language as is, but add a note that gives more examples of praise from the secondary sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library)
 * I'd say only resort to a note if others, apart from me, raise this point. It is not a major concern, and your explanation makes sense. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * pulp-sized would be a helpful piped link. Digest size should also be linked
 * There's a link to pulp magazine in the lead; do you think another is needed below? I agree on the digest link; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The UK reprints continued to be issued long after the magazine had folded. Do we assume that this was without the inclusion of any new material? This should be clarified.
 * I am 99% sure that it was all reprint material, since that would be why the magazine stopped appearing in the UK, but there is no explicit comment to that effect in my sources that I can find, so I'd rather leave it vague. There are certainly cases for other titles where the UK reprints were not solely reprints. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Subject to resolution of the above I will be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My concerns have all been addressed and I'm happy to support - registered above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Sinister_Barrier.png is tagged as lacking source and author information
 * Check reference on File:Unknown_(magazine)_issues_grid.png and File:Unknown_(magazine)_British_issues_grid.png
 * File:Cartier_Fear_illo_Unknown_July_1940.jpg - publisher for source text? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the last item, but I'm not sure what to do about the others. The first one wasn't uploaded by me -- I have a copy of that magazine, though I think it's in worse condition that that, so I could upload another copy and put author info in.  I rather suspect it's grabbed from  here, but can't prove it.  What should I put in in this case?  For your second point, I'm not sure what you're asking; can you clarify?  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can't contact the uploader I'd honestly just parse the description into the appropriate fields and be done with it. Don't worry about the second point, I just misread something. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've parsed the info into the various fields; innotata (below) says it's unnecessary, but it was easy to do and seems harmless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the first file, source information wouldn't be needed, but it is very difficult to confirm that copyright was not renewed. You need to look at records from the year 28 years after publication and the previous and following years, in entries for periodicals, and likely other categories; Project Gutenberg has many transcription errors and is not complete. &mdash;innotata 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this page, which is what I refer to to check copyright, there's no other source than Project Gutenberg if you want to check something that's not a book and was published before 1950. Is that correct?  I did check several different spellings and options -- I don't remember everything I searched for but it wouldn't have been restricted by date, because I'd have done it with a file text search.  Is there a better way to search? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - an interesting read that meets the FA criteria. I have a few quibbles that do not detract from my support. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would link Lest Darkness Fall
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add something in the text about the dates of publication (1963 and 1964, or even just early 1960s) in Three anthologies of stories from Unknown have been published.[12][32][19]
 * I added "in the early 1960s"; I think "in 1963 and 1964" might make it sound as though a total of six anthologies had been printed -- three each year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, I thought refs were supposed to be in numerical order (so the previous sentences refs would be [12][19][32])
 * I don't think this is a FAC requirement, actually, but I agree it looks a little odd, so I fixed all the ones I spotted. Let me know if you see any others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support.
 * Glad to review - I did not see any other refs out of order. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: The sort of high-quality work we've come to expect from M.C. I've done a copyedit—only light work required. If there are questions about any of my edits, I'm happy to discuss them here.—DCGeist (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your copyedit looks more than fine to me; thank you; and thanks also for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.