Talk:Strange Stories (magazine)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 01:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a copyedit. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
Thanks; looks good. The only thing I changed was to put <references /> back in place of {{reflist}}, since you had no parameters on it. Without parameters it's no different to <references />, which is a lot more user friendly in visual editor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
when Weisinger left to edit Superman comics: I've changed this to "Superman comic books"---since you had "Superman" in italics, I assumed it meant this was the Superman-titled series. Is that so?
Actually I'm not sure what the best link is here. He left to be an editor of Superman comics, but as far as I can tell there were several by this time, so I don't think it's necessarily accurate to link to one specific comic book. I think you could argue for the comic link, since we're clearly talking about comics, or the straight Superman link, treating Superman as an attributive noun for the comics he edited. I'm OK with leaving it as you have it if you think that's best. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fantasy and occult fiction had often appeared: would it be inappropriate to link "Fantasy and occult fiction" to weird fiction?
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
who was already editing Thrilling Wonder Stories and Startling Stories : were these also published by Standard?
Yes; clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Little of the fiction was memorable.: sounds POV. Maybe "Critics consider little of the fiction memorable" or somesuch?
Done. I tend to think that statements like this are OK if they are unanimously supported by the cited critical commentary, but your phrasing is good so I switched anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cover art was weak: ditto
I cut it -- on rechecking the source I'm not sure Weinberg was talking about all covers, rather than just the ones by Belarski and Bergey. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No images? Surely a cover shot would be appropriate.
Unfortunately they're still under copyright. You can see them all here; Belarski's are Feb 39 and April 40; Bergey's are Aug/Oct/Dec 39, Feb/Jun/Aug/Oct/Dec 40, and Feb 41. If you think any of them would be justified as illustrating Weinberg's negative comment, then I'll add one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I can access is SF Encyclopedia. I can see no issues there, and the rest of teh article doesn't have any of the telltale signs of copyvio or close paraphrasing---just a couple of POV-ish issues mentioned above.
Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]