Talk:Amazing Stories Annual

Amazing Stories Annual has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 5, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Payment to Burroughs[edit]

Ashley's Gernsback Days says Burroughs accepted $1266 in trade acceptances (p. 129) but Bleiler says he insisted on cash and took 7% interest on top. Need to resolve this, possibly by reference to Porges' bio of ERB, before this goes to GAN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porges confirms the version in Ashley. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amazing Stories Annual/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio check - Earwing's Copyvio Detector produces a 0% result, so no issue with online sources.

Image - public domain, and appropriately use. Positioning and caption are fine. I'm not familiar with the story depicted, so I'm happy to AGF on the ALT text "A man and an alien examine a sleeping woman with red skin", but looks to me like there is a possibility that the woman with red skin is actually unconscious.
What! You haven't read this literary classic! Well, it was a good catch actually; she's about to be operated on, so she's unconscious. I changed the alt text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks on del Rey (1979); Tuck (1982); Westfahl (2021) - no issues.

What makes Galactic Central a reliable source?
See this SFE3 page about the site owner, Phil Stephensen-Payne, and this page about William Contento, the main bibliographic contributor. SFE3 links to Galactic Central from hundreds of their pages, which is additional evidence that they're treating it as a reliable source.
That's convinced me, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Gernsback eventually paid him with trade acceptances (a form of commercial IOU), but Burroughs adding seven per cent interest to the original fee, for a total of $1,266.01" - could be a bit clearer, I think.
That was a typo: it should have been "Burroughs added", not "adding". Does that clarify it? Or is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - I did wonder if that was the issue. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref ordering of [2][1] is logical per the supported text, but I think we normally have refs in numerical order.
It's actually not a requirement even at FA, and I never do it, because adding a ref early in the article can make it necessary to go through and fiddle with the order of half a dozen multiple refs lower down. I'd like to leave this as is, if that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article, Mike Christie, and many thanks also for your efforts in reviewing older GA nominations. I'm happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of the few points above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and I appreciate the thanks for my reviewing. Not sure how long my current energy level will last, but I'm still enjoying doing them so I hope to keep going a bit longer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing this. Thanks and regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.