Talk:Two Complete Science-Adventure Books

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Two Complete Science-Adventure Books/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to take this one on. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that some of these comments are more "thinking aloud" than direct suggestions, here are my comments:

• I'd be inclined to say that "reprint vehicle" is a little too jargony for the lead

  Changed to "carry only reprints". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• "editor; and when" Either remove "and" or switch the semi-colon to a comma?

  Changed to a comma. I overuse semi-colons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Daffron worth redlinking?

  I don't think so; I can find almost nothing out about her and she is not covered in any of my references. I have a note on my long-term to-do list for the next time I go to the NYPL to dig out a copy of The Author and Journalist in which she is mentioned, but I suspect that will only be to say she's the person to whom manuscripts are to be sent. I think she was probably a Fiction House staff editor who stepped in for a couple of issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Two Complete Science-Adventures Books outlasted Tops in Science Fiction by only a few months; it was cancelled in 1954, amid the collapse of the overall pulp market." First off, is Tops in Science Fiction worth linking? Second, it's unclear to me (as a reader with no knowledge of the topic) why this matters/is included.

  Tops in Science Fiction is already linked, further above. I mentioned Tops for context; it could be cut, but I was thinking that from Fiction House's point of view, Two Complete Science-Adventure Books and Tops in Science-Fiction are related -- they're attempts to expand the company's footprint in the sf market at about the same time. But there's no direct connection beyond Fiction House, certainly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Fiction House paid $300 or more for the original novels it printed." Is this a lot? How does it compare?

  I added a note about this; it seemed a bit of a digression to put it in the main text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Two Complete Detective Books Magazine" Worth linking? (I know I ask this a lot, but I'm aware that a lot of people have an undue aversion to redlinks.)

  I've redlinked it; I like redlinks, but in this case I don't really know for sure. I suspect there will be sources for it somewhere, though since it's not an sf/fantasy magazine I don't have those sources myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• "much of the material was uninspired space opera" I'm a little nervous about presenting this in Wikipedia's neutral voice; perhaps a direct quote would be appropriate?

  Done. I think this is sometimes OK, particularly when there's a consensus of multiple commentators on the opinion, but in this case I only have the one source, so I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, a more substantive issue: You present a particular timeline of editors in the history section as factually correct, but, in the bibliography section, you say there's a dispute. I'd recommend reporting the difference of opinion in the history section but leave it out of the bibliographic details section

  This is a bit trickier, but I think I have it sorted out now. I know from other sources (on Planet Stories) that Malcolm Reiss was a senior editor at Fiction House; he would oversee multiple publications, which may or may not have had editors assigned specifically to them from time to time. For example, he is listed at Planet Stories as editor for two different runs; those were periods when there was no other editor and he did the work directly. For Two Complete Science-Adventure Stories, Ashley is specific at one point about Reiss having Bixby and Daffron as "assistants", but at another point he just lists them as editors. Marchesani doesn't cover any of this. Given that Ashley is the later source, and that Reiss's approach is well-described for the sister magazine, I think it's safe to say that Ashley should be trusted, over Marchesani, but given also that even Ashley lists Bixby and Daffron as editors, I think wording is needed that shows their role was with Reiss in the background. I can't be very specific because the sources are not, but I think I found a form of words that deals with this more or less adequately. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• So, this may sound silly given the title, but perhaps you could specify in the lead that each issue contained two full stories? (I am also wondering how common that format is- did other pulp magazines generally contain many more?)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Given that there were only 22 stories in the whole history of the magazine, I am left thinking that there may be room for a full list of all stories.

  There's room, and I could easily put it in a four column table -- date of magazine, title of story, author, and notes (for pseudonyms, later retitlings, awards, etc.). I've never done this because (a) it seems hard to know where to stop, and (b) it seems more like an index than an article once one starts to do that sort of thing. But I guess I don't have a strong argument against it. Do you feel it really should be done? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Location categories?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally solid. I'll take your word for it on the image, and Google Scholar throws up very little for this one. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- I don't think I can get to it tonight; it'll most likely be tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've now replied to everything. I don't know if you're interested, but just FYI, I have one of these magazine articles at FAC at the moment, and would be glad of your usual thoroughness there, if you have the time. The magazine is Marvel Science Stories and the article is quite short; no problem if you don't have time, of course. Also, in case you're curious, I'm planning to do a featured topic on these eventually; I'm informally tracking progress at User:Mike Christie/Sandbox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some final tweaks to the text- please double-check them to make sure you are happy. If so, I will go ahead and promote. Concerning the inclusion of all the published stories: If I were writing this article, I'd go ahead with a table. I think readers would be interested to know all the authors and their stories, and, importantly, which were original stories and which were reprints (and, if they were reprints, where they were first published, and perhaps even where the original stories have been reprinted, if at all). I defer to your judgement on this matter, and it certainly will not affect the GA candidacy. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor tweaks to your edits. I've created the table and will finish it over the next day or two; I think I can source it from Tuck, since the ISFDB says they are all listed there; my copy of Tuck is in a box somewhere, so that's cheating a little bit, but I will try to dig it out over the next week or so anyway. I can add notes on first printing vs. reprinting for most of them from my other refs. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also going to add refs to books I don't have if I can see sufficient evidence that the book supports it, such Alternate Asimov's, which I don't have but which I am about to cite as a source for "Grow Old With Me". I'm aware some editors don't think it's kosher to cite something where you can't visually confirm the information yourself; I think this is one of the cases where it's OK, but let me know if you disagree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's looking fantastic. I want to have a little further play with the table in the next couple of days, so I'll hold off closing the review, as long as you're not in a hurry. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No hurry at all. I like the sortability! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a play with the table and it's about where I think it should be. Two questions: First, are you happy with how it looks? Second, do you agree with the "Short Story" formatting, or would you prefer the Novel formatting for the titles? J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it looks great. I was wondering about the quotes vs. italics; the problem is that some of these are definitely novels and some are definitely short stories. On the whole, I think the short story format is slightly better because these were not being published separately; each one appeared with another story in the same magazine, so as far as this magazine is concerned they are stories. I also agree with the removal of "no subsequent publication"; I'm sure it's true but it's hard to cite, and technically would require an "As of 2014" statement for each one. Thanks for the improvements! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Great stuff- promoting now. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)