Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagination (magazine)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.202.60.86 (talk) at 01:16, 25 December 2007 (reply + support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Imagination (magazine)

Check external links

An 1950s US science fiction magazine. The most similar existing FAs are Beyond Fantasy Fiction and Fantastic Universe, both of which are US magazines, and Authentic Science Fiction, a British sf magazine of the same era. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infoboxes are not required for any type of article. Please explain why you think an infobox would help this article. I have explained below why I think an infobox is actually harmful for this article. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only 17kB, not comprehensive. No infobox, no external links section, no section about the writing and publishing of the magazine. Needs a copyedit. Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infoboxes are not required for FAs or any articles; external links are ideally minimized and the lack of external links is not a detriment (see WP:EL, WP:NOT); there is no minimum size requirement for a featured article; and saying an article is not comprehensive or needs copyediting without providing examples isn't an actionable oppose. The criteria for FAs can be found at WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kaypoh, it has already been explained to you that infoboxes and external links are not required for FA, nor any other type of article. I'm not really sure why you keep making this demand. If you think an infobox would improve this article, please explain why. I'm also concerned that you have stated there is "no section about the writing and publishing of the magazine". To me this indicates you did not read the article, since the entire "History" section, to begin with, details just this topic. I would also like to echo SandyGeorgia's comment that insisting a copy edit is needed without suggesting areas for improvement is not particularly enlightening. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an infobox; I don't particularly like them myself, but am happy to bow to majority opinion here. There was an external links section, but I deleted it since every link in it was absorbed into the references section. I don't see a need to break it out again as that would just duplicate the links. Is there a particular site you think should be linked? With regard to writing and publishing, can you be more specific? It seems to me that there's a good deal of information about how the magazine came to be published. What are you looking for, exactly? And for writing, I'm not sure what is missing: there's information about the content of the magazine, and many of the writers are mentioned. What is missing? For copyedits: I'd be glad of some examples. It's a rare article that can't be improved by copyediting, but it does make it easier if you can point at particular problems. Mike Christie (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to respond to the first point, sorry. There's no minimum length requirement for an FA, and 17KB is certainly nothing like the shortest FA. Readable prose size is actually 12KB; Hurricane Irene (2005), which is the shortest featured article I know of, is only 5KB of readable prose. If it's not comprehensive, it shouldn't be FA, so I assume your subsequent comments cover the areas where you feel the article is not comprehensive. If so I'll wait to hear from you on those points since I don't yet see anything that's missing. Mike Christie (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sandy's comment above, can you please be more specific on what would be needed for comprehensiveness and what sections are missing? Mike Christie (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this; it would be helpful if contributors to FAC referred to WP:WIAFA and thoroughly reviewed articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add my voice to the chorus here. These "reviews" are meaningless. Please take the time to carefully review the articles that come to FAC. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I believe the two editors objecting to the length of the article need to review WP:WIAFA. Now, on to the article: generally well-written, but it could do with another proofread/copyedit to spruce up the writing. I corrected some of the odd punctuation/grammar errors, but their presence leads me to believe that the writing needs another look over. Some of the prose leaves me wondering about the details at times, too. Also, in my opinion the history section should be expanded with more details. How did it do financially? Circulation? How popular was it? The History section gives a lot of context for the era that the magazine appeared, which is good, but not much about the magazine itself.
I've added a note about circulation, though the answer is that it isn't known (it's not usually known for most of these magazines till the sixties, when it became a requirement to post annual circulation figures in the magazine itself). I was able to find a comparison number for another magazine that began only a year earlier. Financially, there's no information beyond the fact that the liquidation of American News Company left Hamling without enough money to invest in all three. There's no information about Greenleaf's finances at all until the sixties, when they became embroiled in a moderately prominent lawsuit over the right to send the (supposedly obscene) Rogue through the mail; they won they lawsuit but lost too much money doing so and went under. Popularity: the critical opinion is all I can offer here. The quote from a contemporary fanzine is better than I've been able to do in other articles -- these magazines were not noticed by any sort of critic, so there is no chance of finding contemporary commentary. I did look through some of the collected critical pieces by writers such as Damon Knight and James Blish, and found that they completely ignored Imagination, so I could add a negative statement to the effect that the magazine wasn't noticed by those writers. (Blish and Knight wrote contemporary pieces later collected as books of critical essays; these are among the very few contemporary sources to address fifties sf magazines.) Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that's a shame that there isn't much info out there. One last, very nitpicky thing: some of your refs in the notes have periods at the end, while others don't (sorry...I'm used to copyediting) . Anyway, good job with the changes. You have my support. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • "...beginning to appear again; and it was..." Either make the semicolon a comma or get rid of "and".
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the pretence had been dropped..." Are you sure pretence is the right word here? This gives the impression that the two were deliberately misleading readers at first. Is that what was going on? Also, since this is an American magazine, perhaps American spelling would be best?
Yes, pretense is correct -- deception is what was intended, since Clark was a competitor to Ziff-Davis, Palmer's employer. Do I need to make that clearer? And I agree on US spelling: I changed a couple of instances of "colour" to "color" as well. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I'm not sure if there's a good way of making that clearer, but I didn't connect the dots while I was reading the sentence. Of course, that may be just be me being slow ;) 69.202.60.86 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...he had left Ziff-Davis and described his plans." Which were?
Clarified. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palmer had a serious accident" What type of accident?
Clarified. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palmer promptly contacted William Hamling" Why? What was the purpose of contacting him?
Clarified. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent comma use. The introductory clause "in [year]" is sometimes followed by a comma and sometimes not: "In 1954 Hamling", "In 1957, the", "By the end of 1958 many titles".
Good catch; fixed, or at least made consistent. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SF encyclopedist" Is that some official title, or should SF really be "Science fiction"?
Oops; yes, I've spelled it out. "SF" or "sf" are the usual abbreviations, where one is needed, but I think I can avoid introducing an abbreviation at all here. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a tendency to rely on the colon for some reason, where the semicolon is more appropriate.
I went through and modified two or three; let me know if any others look wrong to you. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful of superfluous prose: "Some readers, at least, agreed with Hamling".
Fixed. Excess qualifiers are a besetting sin of mine and one I find hard to fix in my own prose. I'll scan for more of these but would appreciate any more nudges. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These were unusual in that they included photographs of the authors in question." Why is this unusual? Explain.
Well, biographical sketches weren't terribly rare, but I don't recall seeing pictures of the authors in every issue in any other magazine of the era. If you mean "why didn't people include pictures", I don't have a source to refer to, but I'd be surprised if it were not related to cost. The pictures in Imagination are single-colour reproductions (a pale blue). The cover is glossy stock and went through a printing process capable of producing photographs, so no doubt there's not a whole lot more expense in having a photo on the inside front cover. But to put something like that in the article would, I think, be original research, or at least synthesis, on my part; I haven't seen anyone else draw that conclusion. Any thoughts on what should be done here? I tried adding a clause saying that "other magazines did not typically include author photographs in biographical sketches", but that seemed like a long way of saying "unusually". Alternatively I could just cut "unusually", which is just a judgement after all. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I think the various subtle meanings of "unusual" were triggering something when I read that sentence for some reason. Take a look at my stab at it, and see if that's OK. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're the same, but he went by "Michael" for a while and now goes by "Mike". I've fixed the footnote to make it consistent.
Thanks for your accurate and thoughtful comments. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support This is a solid article which uses good sources to flesh out a relatively obscure topic. Here are my questions and suggestions:
  • I would delete the infobox as it detracts from the image and the information is all repeated and better explained in the article. I do not think infoboxes should be added when they do not assist in understanding. The publication history of this magazine is somewhat complicated and is explained well in the article. There is no need for the infobox, which dominates the upper section of the article and actually does not present that information as well.
  • Few of the stories from Imagination have received recognition, but it did publish Robert Sheckley's first story, "Final Examination", in the May 1952 issue, and also printed stories by Philip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, and John Wyndham. - repetition of the word "story" is inelegant
  • By the late 1940s, the American science fiction magazine market had begun to recover from the paper shortages that had led to the demise of several titles. - You might want to mention why there were paper shortages.
  • I wonder if much of the information in the third paragraph of the "History" section, which is general information about publishing, might be better placed at the beginning of the "History" section, so that the reader is gently led into the specifics related to the magazine itself.
  • The cover story for the first issue was "The Soul Stealers", by Chester S. Geier, a regular in the Ziff-Davis magazines Amazing Stories and Fantastic Adventures. The cover illustration was by Hannes Bok. - Perhaps say a little more about the story and the illustration?
  • Neville went on to become one of the most frequently appearing writers in the magazine - awkwardly worded
  • Edmond Hamilton also appeared frequently towards the end of the magazine's life. - "Writings of Edmond Hamilton" perhaps?
  • Imagination is generally thought of as one of the weaker science fiction magazines of the fifties, despite its relative longevity. - By contemporary critics or scholars?
  • I think retrieval dates are supposed to be wikified.
  • What do you think about adding a "Background" section on science fiction magazines for a bit of literary and publishing context? I am only thinking of two or three paragraphs here, but I think it would help readers unfamiliar with the genre and you have the space. Also, some generalized statements about science fiction magazines might give readers an idea of what these publications were like, since I assume you have very little on this one (apart from the space opera comment).

I hope these comments were helpful. Awadewit | talk 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Imagination_(magazine)&oldid=180045220"