Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wonder Stories


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 17:23, 31 December 2008.

Wonder Stories

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)

This is an article about one of the earliest science fiction magazines. Amazing Stories was recently featured and would be a good comparison. Another point that may be of interest is that as result of some recent discussion at the FAC talk page and elsewhere about short articles, I decided to include a couple of other magazines in this article. The details are given in the article so I won't repeat them, but essentially the article covers between two and five magazines, depending on which bibliographer is counting. If I didn't include Science Wonder Quarterly, I'd end up with a very short article on that magazine that would need a good deal of material copied verbatim from this article. Anyway, I look forward to comments; thanks for all input. Mike Christie (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes http://news.ansible.co.uk/a239.html a reliable source?
 * It's the online version of the science fiction news and gossip fanzine Ansible (magazine). David Langford, who publishes it, has won multiple Hugo Awards for the magazine, and it is widely respected.  Langford controls the content, so there is editorial control.  If you don't think it passes I can cut it; I might be able to replace it, but I might also just cut the whole paragraph -- the 2007 reissue is not the same magazine, it just uses the same name, and I don't think it has to be mentioned. Mike Christie (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be related to the fanzine, but wasn't sure. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable for non-controversial information. It wouldn't be safe for a BLP, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Images
 * Image:Science Wonder Quarterly Fall 1929.jpg, Image:Air wonder stories 192907.jpg and Image:Science Wonder Stories 1929 June.jpg all need description info; source, author, date, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I haven't used the information tag before so let me know if there's anything I missed. Mike Christie (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The tagging looks pretty good (thanks for using the template; it's hell to review images without them, and I usually go all OCD on them and format them out anyhow.) We're missing two things now; first, the original copyright holder (usually put in the description or other information parameter of the template), and how we know that the copyright wasn't renewed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 04:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I thought it would be useful to explain the Gutenberg file I searched, so I included a link to User:Quadell/copyright, which is very helpful.  Is there a project-space page that's equivalent to that which could be used instead? Mike Christie (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of something in projectspace that explicit. One last nitpick; can you explain in the descriptions what Project Gutenberg is to newbs? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the note; see what you think. I'm guessing that it's really the nature of the file I searched that needs to be explained, not the website I searched it at, so my explanation is tilted that way.  Do you think I also need to explain Project Gutenberg itself? Mike Christie (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A little mention would be nice, as I can see what you did, but I would be left with "wait... what makes this web site the place to search for it?" Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How does it look now?  Mike Christie (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 04:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not really sure how much the charts aid the reader; it just kind of confused me on first glance. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The intention is for them to convey a lot of information that would be very tedious to put into text. The volume numbering, for example, which is of interest to collectors, doesn't have to be mentioned at all in the text if I have those charts.  The transition dates for the editors, the exact months when publication was skipped, just when the magazine was monthly and when it was bimonthly -- all those things are easy to read from the chart.  I have done this in a single chart, e.g. in If (magazine); but for Amazing Stories I split them up per a PR comment, and I think that looks better.  Do you think the information is unnecessary, or is it that the presentation could be improved? Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see the use of such information, at least in it's split-up form, and would advocate a single list. Also, to improve accessibility, it should really say on the image pages and in the caption what the numbers mean; it took me a while to figure out that it was 12 issues in a volume and unlike many publications it didn't correlate to year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added more information to the image descriptions. For the article itself, the first caption does say that the numbers mean the volume and issue number; I felt it would be annoying to the reader to repeat it on every caption.  Long captions are ugly, too.  I can do it if necessary, but my instinct is not to do so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just realized I didn't respond to the comment about usefulness: I do think this is useful information to some readers; I'm aware it won't be to many readers, but I don't think that's a big problem. I did originally have it as a single list, but was strongly advised at PR to break it up, so I'll wait and see what other reviewers feel about it.  It's very easy to rejoin the images if that's preferred. Mike Christie (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My rationale is that since it's a more niche item of interest it makes more sense to keep it together rather than sprinkled through, otherwise readers are going to think it's more important than it is... I leave it up to others. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Content It's easier for me to keep track of comments if you keep them separated from mine below. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * "Startling itself only lasted to the end of 1955 before falling victim to the general decline of the pulp magazine industry." - the way this is phrased, it makes it sound like Starling was suddenly and violently affected by the decline of the industry; I'm sure this was much more of a long-term trend. Can that be made more clear?
 * I'm concerned about a bit of overuse of weasel words, in particular "some". "Some well-received fiction", "in the opinion of some science fiction historians"...
 * "Some well-received fiction was published by both Lasser and Hornig, but Hornig's efforts in particular were overshadowed by the success of Astounding Stories that had become the leading magazine in the new field of science fiction"
 * "and for a period in the early 1940s was especially juvenile in presentation" - juvenile in presentation, to me, implies garish graphics and lots of whiz-bang covers attempting to attract young boys. Do you mean it's design and aesthetic or the quality of it's stories, or both? If so, it might be better to explicitly make it clear.


 * "falling victim": I added "finally", hoping that this indicates that the process was drawn out and not sudden. Does that work?
 * Weasel words: you mention two items in the lead. In both cases I think these are supported by specific citations when the topics are dealt with in the body -- Ashley is named in the text for the "historian" comment, and the other is supported by reference to specific stories.  Hence these don't seem to me like weasel words -- I think of weasel words as ones that are not supported but which try to insinuate a point.  I could make the lead more specific, by citing specific stories, and mentioning Ashley by name, but that didn't seem suitable for the lead, which is just a summary after all.  Would extra specificity fix this for you?
 * "which vs. that": this is a non-restrictive clause, so it does need to be "which", not "that"; I think the problem was that I left out a comma. See, which is my favourite page on this grammatical topic.
 * The answer is "both": the section on Weisinger and Friend gives more details. Again I think of the lead as merely summarizing here, but I could expand it to something like "was especially juvenile in both editorial style and artistic presentation".  Would that be better?
 * -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I leave it up to your knowledge about which/that; the 'finally' clarifies things. My only concern is still with the weasel words. I understand what you mean, but I'd just like a little more specificity rather than 'some'. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the lead to have a specific well-known story cited to support the "some well-received fiction" comment, and I attributed the second phrase that concerned you specifically to Mike Ashley. Now I make the change, I think you're definitely right on that latter one; that opinion is not universal among critics so it does need to be attributed.  And the former change is helpful too, so I think you were right. Mike Christie (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok that takes care of my comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lean Support. Comment - Image in "Contents and reception" causes a heading disruption. This could be remedied by removing the heading "Air Wonder and Science Wonder". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning support on what I see now. "Contents and reception" the second paragraph could use a sentence or two to flush it out. Is there a second example of this? A sentence or two would help. Since this would be my only exposure to it, multiple examples would improve my understanding. Also, I can easily fully support this once all of the above users' comments are dealt with (or, many of them :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added another example -- let me know if that's enough. I left a message for Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs at his talk page; he is not much on-wiki at the moment, I gather, which is probably why he hasn't responded to my notes above.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made a little copyedit for clarity. I'll wait to see what others say, but I see no problems with the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose  Tony  (talk)  15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)—1a. I've read only the first para, and there are things wrong in every sentence. Can you find someone fresh to the text to copy-edit the whole article carefully? Know where to find someone?
 * Awkward opening: "Wonder Stories was an early science fiction magazine which, under several titles, was published from 1929 to 1955." Why not just: "Wonder Stories was an early science fiction magazine that was published under several titles from 1929 to 1955.
 * "It was founded by Hugo Gernsback in 1929 in the aftermath of the Experimenter Publishing bankruptcy, in which he lost control of his first science fiction magazine"—Is the tense right? ("had lost"?). And "in ... in ... in"; what about "in the aftermath of the 1929 Exp...", if that's correct?
 * "Within a few months of the bankruptcy, Gernsback launched two separate monthly magazines: Air Wonder Stories and Science Wonder Stories, along with a companion magazine, Science Wonder Quarterly." You prepare us for two items after the colon, but give us three. Then "monthly magazines" confuses us as to what is what.
 * "The magazines were not financially successful, and in 1936 Gernsback sold Wonder Stories to Ned Pines at Beacon Publications, where, retitled Thrilling Wonder Stories, it continued for nearly twenty more years." Third time "magazine" in a few lines, so just "These were ...". You don't want both "continued" and "more". "20"?
 * "The last issue was dated Winter 1955; after that date Thrilling Wonder was merged with Startling Stories, another of Pines' science fiction magazines. Startling itself only lasted to the end of 1955 before finally succumbing to the general decline of the pulp magazine industry." Is "Winter" a date? Change that and you avoid the close repetition of the word, too. Comma after the second "date". I think you need quotes and around your nickname of "Startling" (as well as italic face), rather than the plain italic face used for the formal title that precedes it. Do we need "general"? I'd place "only" after "lasted"—put it as late as possible in a clause. Tony   (talk)  11:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All done, I hope, except for a couple of items as follows. The rewording of the sentence about the bankruptcy isn't quite what you suggested as that would not have made it clear that the magazines were launched in 1929.  Yes, Winter is a date; quarterly magazines were then and are still dated that way.  I think "Startling" doesn't look right and it should be Startling, given that it's an abbreviation of a form that would be italicized.  Changing from italics would be distracting to the reader.  Other than that I hope everything is addressed.  I will try to find a new copyeditor.  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Status? Has Tony been asked to revisit ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support: I have copyedited the article and made numerous adjustments to the prose which I now think is sufficiently tight. This is now a very readable, comprehensive piece of magazine publishing history, a worthy companion piece to Amazing Stories.

I have one quibble, about linking. Oscar Friend is bluelinked in the text, redlinked in the list towards the end of the article. Also, do Lasser, Weisinger and Meran need to be linked in the table, as they are already linked earlier in the article? Likewise, do Hornig and Miles really need second redlinks?

Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the copyedit and the support. You're right on the overlinking and I've removed those links.  Mike Christie (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support: There were a couple of minor problems which I took the liberty of fixing. I changed two words to US spelling, (rivaled and judgment), and I hope this was the right thing to do. I didn't like the "with regard to" but I cannot think of a better way of writing the sentence. I really don't like all those ugly little tables scattered throughout the article. I know they carry a lot of information important to some enthusiasts, but they spoil the look of the article. Could they be but together at the bottom of the article, just a thought. OK that's the nit-picking over, now for the praise. This is a superbly researched article, it is well-sourced and well written. I loved the little treats like the Asimov and John Wyndham anecdotes; a damn good read, well done. Graham Colm Talk 15:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Yes, the article should be in US spelling; I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic and my spelling is corrupted from either perspective, so thanks for the fixes.  The tables are difficult to know what to do with; I do firmly believe the information belongs in the article, but perhaps it could be presented another way.  Take a look at If (magazine), which has the equivalent table at the end; it's unreadable as a result, but does not clutter the upper half of the article.  For the moment I'll stick with the divided tables as they are readable (and a peer review on Amazing Stories strongly recommended this change) but I'm open to either approach if I can get enough interested people to form a consensus.  Maybe I'll start tracking the comments I've seen on this (pro and con) and see if they accumulate on one side or the other.  I changed "With regard to the title change, Gernsback commented" to "In an editorial just before the title change, Gernsback commented" -- how's that?  Mike Christie (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I can live with the tables. And, with regard to the "with regard to", I wished I'd thought of that :-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Support In general, this article is very good, but there are still a few elements that need polishing:
 *  Weak oppose Neutral, all those images of tables of issues rely should be re-done as real inline tables per Manual of Style. Also per Manual of Style they reply should not rely purely on color to show what editor was responsible for what issue (use initials under the date or simmilar notations). --Sherool (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried making a table for one of the images: take a look at this version to see it. I think it's less satisfactory; the size is harder to manage, for one thing, and it doesn't respond to pagesize instructions.  I reverted to the image but added alt text: see this version, which has the alt text in.  I think the alt text might actually be more useful than the table, because in the alt text I can summarize for an unsighted reader, rather than make them listen to a long list of individual "two slash one, two slash two" cells being read out.  For the colour, I took a look at Vischeck per the MOS recommendation and it looks as if the colours I've chosen are distinguishable for someone with red-green blindness, so I think I'm OK there.  Please take a look at both versions and let me know which you think is best.  My own feeling is that with the alt text the image is slightly the better choice. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be harder to manage the size, but not that hard. You can tweak font size, width and line height to your hearts content using CSS, see my example version. That said it might work better to have the tables in full size somewhere else since "exessive" styling might cause issues with older browsers/mobile devices and what not. I'm rely not sure. I still think tabular data with color coding in image form is less than ideal, but if you throw in alt text to accomodate screenreaders and rewrite the captions slightly so they don't rely entierly on colors (think for example black & white printouts) I guess enough of my concerns have been adressed to change my stance to newtral. -Sherool (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed by what can be accomplished with the styles; the table as you had it looked quite acceptable to me. After thinking about it some more, though, I think the images with alt text are really a better choice, because I can make the alt text much more comprehensible to someone than the table cells are.  The value of the image to a sighted person is that at a glance one can see that Lasser edited for several years, and was followed by Hornig who edited for several more years.  The individual table cells would not convey that very well, but the alt text can summarize in just that way.  So I've reverted, and added alt text to all the images.  I've also modified the captions to associate date ranges with the colours, which I think addresses your concern about a black and white printout.  Let me know if that addresses your concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess that pretty much covers it (good point about the raw table listing issue numbers probably not beeing of much use to a blind reader using a screenreader). I still feel it might have been better to present this in some other way (the scattered tables feel a tad "messy" to me), but I can't quite think of how to do it better so I won't make that a point of opposition since It's mostly a matter of taste. So consider me neutral. --Sherool (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this article needs a small paragraph that puts the subject in context. Many readers won't know about the publication history of SF magazines, so a small introduction on the rise of the pulps and the Golden Age of SF would be helpful. It would help the reader place this magazine in the larger firmament of SF magazines.
 * I stole a context paragraph from Amazing Stories and put it at the top of the "Publication History" section, and tweaked the following paragraph to suit. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you could expand it to include information on the Golden Age of the 40s and 50s, since Wonder was published during that time? You could write the paragraph from the point of view of Wonder: it spanned the birth and golden age of SF magazines (or something like that). Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly can add something but I'm not sure where it would go -- I think the publication history section needs to be reasonably chronological, and it would be a bit dislocating to talk about the 40s in that first paragraph. I was hoping that the context of the Golden Age and the other magazines would be sufficiently covered by references in the body of the article.  For example, the "Influence on the field" section talks about the Golden Age, and Astounding is mentioned as a point of comparison several times -- under the sections on Horning and on Merwin and Mines, for example.  Where were you thinking I should put this additional material? Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that a little overview paragraph at the beginning that covered both the pulps and the Golden Age would be a good idea. While the chronology is a good idea for the detailed sections of the article, I think it is helpful to let the reader know where the article is going at the beginning. So, for example, when I teach the history of the French Revolution in my introductory lecture on Frankenstein, I don't just go through the chronology of the Revolution. I start by giving a little overarching narrative: Bastille, Constitution, Deposition of the King, Terror, Napoleon, Napoleonic Wars, Waterloo - my two-minute French Revolution. Then I go back and spend more time explaining what really happened and the particular issues that are relevant for Frankenstein. But without this little timeline, the students won't know what is "coming next" and they can't orient themselves properly. (Do you watch documentaries? They often do this, too.) I think articles have to do this kind of "forecasting": we have to situate readers historically and show them how individual people and things fit within a larger timeline. So, for example, I have to show my students how Frankenstein is reacting to the debates surrounding the French Revolution - a history with which they are totally unfamiliar. This article needs to show readers how Wonder Stories was part of the great era of pulps and SF magazines. Telling a little bit of that story at the beginning gives readers who are less knowledgeable about the subject a larger narrative to grab onto - it anchors their comprehension around a few key points, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a little more; let me know if that's what you're looking for. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this well help the uninitiated a lot. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the writing in the second half of the article is much better than in the first half. I would like to see another copyedit of "Publication history". There are wordy sentences and awkward phrases. If you like, I can do this later today.
 * Yes, please! Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - please check the changes I made to see if I introduced any mistakes. I did change the meaning in a few places, guessing what was meant. Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All looks good, except for one word change: "stealing" should really be "using" since the illegality was the use of the list, not the possession of the list. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The covers, often by Earle K. Bergey, typically depicted bizarre aliens and threatened women - I'm not totally sure what the phrase "threatened women" is supposed to mean - is it supposed to mean "threatening women" or what?
 * Per BuddingJournalist's note below, it means damsels in distress. See the next note and links. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes much more sense. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Under Friend's direction, Earle Bergey began to paint more cover art featuring women in ludicrously revealing spacesuits, or wearing his trademark "brass brassières" - I know exactly what you mean by "ludicrously revealing spacesuits", but I think perhaps we should come up with a better description. It is my understanding that a very specific part of these women was revealed. :)
 * Ah, well, you obviously haven't looked at as many of them as I have! Breasts are certainly a big focus, if you'll pardon my phrasing, but see this, this, or this, for example.  I didn't want to be specific about body parts; a spacesuit that reveals expanses of belly and thigh in addition to barely covering the breasts is ludicrous on multiple grounds.  If you can improve on what I've written, please do, but I wanted to be sure you had a good understanding of the inane spacesuit designs before you got out the blue pencil!  Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about something along the lines of "provocative", "alluring", "erotic", or "sensuous"? That was the point of them, was it not? Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added "beautiful"; is that enough? The source makes the point that they were intended to be alluring, so you're right that should have been there.  It also says they were ridiculous, so I'd like to leave that in.  Here are the relevant sentences from the source: "[Bergey] responded to editorial requirements under Friend to paint covers featuring monsters and voluptuous women in danger.  The women were invariably wearing ridiculous spacesuits that left them half-naked, or were wearing brass-brassières". Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'm wondering if the emphasis here is wrong. The "ridiculous spacesuits" sentence is a bit vague. Are these spacesuits "ridiculous" because they were alluring or because they were unrealistic? Looking at this image, for example, it is only the man who could reasonably survive in space. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I made it "implausibly revealing" to try to tilt the sense in that direction; does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He argued against restrictions in science fiction themes, and in 1952 published Philip José Farmer's "The Lovers", a ground-breaking story about sex, in Startling. - Could you be a bit more specific about the story's ground-breaking nature? Sex is a big topic, after all.
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Too funny! Interspecies sex! Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He followed this in 1953 with another taboo-breaking story from Farmer, "Mother", in Thrilling Wonder. - Why was it taboo-breaking?
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "Notes" "p" and "pp" are not used consistently - "pp" is missing from some multi-page references.
 * Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "Notes", the Nicholls & Clute Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is not referred to by a consistent nomenclature.
 * Fixed. Two things to note; one is that there are two editions, and because the 1993 one is in New York, and I won't be back in NY till January 4th, I am quoting one article from the 1981 edition. The second point is that some articles are missing page numbers; that's because they were cited from the CD version.  I'll add the page numbers when I get back to NY -- I hope that won't hold up your support. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk. Submitting an FAC before it's ready. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was a bit embarrassed when I went to fix the citation problems you pointed out and realized how poorly formatted they all were. Somehow I thought I'd done the clean up on these, including the page numbers, but they were messy.  I promise to be better behaved in future. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "References", some bibliographic entries are missing publication locations.
 * I believe the only one that is now missing is for Davin; as above my copy is in NY. It's almost certainly Ann Arbor, as the book was published by the University of Michigan, but I will add it when I get back up there.  The Amazing Stories entry is not in citation format as I am not sure how to use that template for a magazine; if you happen to know how, could you convert it? Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Davin and Asimov. I don't know templates, sorry. I find them to be far too much trouble. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Asimov is done; Davin will be done in a few days. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "References", the Perry entry has a strange "ref" tag at the end of it.
 * Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the issue charts need to indicate on the image description page who made the chart and that the chart is "self-made" so that the license makes sense. :)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I'm rereading the lead, it seems to be skewed more towards "publication" than "content and reception". I think a bit of tweaking needs to be done here. As many readers will only read the lead, I think it needs to say more about what kinds of stories were published in the magazines, for example. Awadewit (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a bit more; see what you think. Thanks for the time you're taking on this; it's appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed “threatened women” to “damsels in distress”. I think this is what was meant here, right Mike? Budding Journalist 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; noted above. Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to say that I've changed to "support" above. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.