Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ace Books/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKiernan via FACBot (talk) 6:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Ace Books

 * Notified: Mike Christie, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Companies, WikiProject Science Fiction''

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has: A tag of written like an advertisement. Whole paragraphs without citations. A general shortage of citations and prose issues. Some unrealiable sources. Crispulop (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * At least for the moment, please keep discussion and comments at Talk:Ace Books. We generally allow about two weeks for discussion on the article talk page and for article improvement before continuing with or starting a review here. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have time to work on this over the next couple of weeks. I'll comment at the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about posting it here immediately. Overlooked a step in the procedures. Crispulop (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think everything is now cited. Let me know what else needs to be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the main issues I noted are solved. I however have no experience in FAR, maybe DrKiernan would like to have a look at it. Crispulop (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken this off hold for any further comments/declarations. If there aren't any fairly soon, I'll close this as a keep. DrKiernan (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a concern about the lead- namely that it does not seem to adequately summarize the article in its 5 sentences. It stops covering "History" at about 1963, and doesn't mention at all that "Ace" is now the SFF division/imprint for Penguin, rather than an independent company- and that it hasn't been one since 1972.
 * The second two paragraphs of the lead were split into a section called "Importance" by another editor; I've removed that section title so the lead is now longer. How does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally: the "Ace nomenclature" section talks about it like it's a current thing, rather than a system that ended in 1968.
 * Not sure I agree here -- it's all in past tense, except "the following is a list" which has to be in present tense. Can you be more specific? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * References are a mess: using two different date formats (yyyy-mm-dd, Month dd, yyyy); quite a lot of the references have no publisher; ref 42 is pretty bare; ref 52 has ALLCAPS; some of the references with publishers are still malformed: see "sf-encyclopedia.com" rather than "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" (Third/Online edition, as you will) -- Pres N  05:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll work on cleaning these up; might take me a week or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see Indopug has already done a lot of ref cleanup; thank you! I have done a couple more bits and pieces, and don't see much left to do.   I've updated the SFE references to use "Science Fiction Encyclopedia" as the title, as that's part of what appears in the pages' title text.  I don't think it's necessary to say "Online" since it's obviously a web reference.  Can you point out anything else that needs fixing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't get this ping; note that you have to have a ~ in the same edit as the username reference for it to work. Anyways:
 * Lead looks better.
 * My problem with the nomenclature section is the first sentence, which gets the section off on the wrong foot- "Ace titles have had two main types of serial numbers". This reads as "They have in the past, and still do". Tweaking that makes my concerns go away- I've gone ahead and done so, though feel free to change it if you want.
 * Refs look good now, thanks. You don't need "Online" for the SFE refs, I was just making a nod to the fact that SFE is technically the third edition of the encyclopedia (1st-1979, 2nd-1993, 3rd-online edition), and you're citing the 2nd edition elsewhere, but since it's more an online website than an "edition" of a book, it can be ignored.
 * At this point, all of my concerns are addressed, so if was waiting on me, you can go ahead and close. -- Pres  N  04:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

DrKiernan (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.