Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asimov's Science Fiction/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2023 [1].

Asimov's Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the few important science fiction magazines to be launched in the last fifty years. Scores of award-winning stories have appeared in Asimov's over the years and it was at one point one of the most prestigious markets in the genre. There's not as much written about the last couple of decades, perhaps because sf in magazine form is no longer the cutting edge of the field, but I've included what I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

" with circulation of 108,843 for the first year, a little higher than Analog's." If this is cumulative for all issues, I might add "total" before "circulation".
It's for just one issue -- whichever issue was selected from within the first year or so to report circulation, which every magazine has to do at least once a year. I made it "reaching 108,843"; does that make it clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"After pushback from the authors Moloney turned over manuscript editing to McCarthy." Perhaps a comma after "authors".
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"as an increase in total text of 10%, with no price increase." I would avoid the second "increase" with a synonym.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Asimov's soon became known for humorous stories; the only touch of humor in the first issue was Clarke's story, "Quarantine", which was a very short story originally written to fit on a postcard, but more quickly appeared." Since the second part of this sentence stands in mild contradiction to the first, I'm not sure they should be joined by a semicolon.
Changed to a full stop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"but Davis Publications did not waiting to risk alienating the young readers which they knew formed part of the magazine's audience." "Which" should probably be who.
I made it "whom", which I think is right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"orangutan" is rendered orang-utan in the lede and only linked in the body.
Fixed and linked in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and Robinson's "The Blind Geometer", about a blind mathematician," I might vary the description a bit, since the title in this case is descriptive.
I can't think of anything else useful to say about it, without rereading it, so I just cut the description -- as you say the reader gets the idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything on how Asimov's death affected the magazine/ability to use his name?
Not mentioned in the sources -- I would guess it would be up to his estate but I have nothing I can use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

“reaching over 100,000 circulation within a year”: this reads a little oddly to me. “reaching a circulation of over 100,000 within a year” seems more natural, but this may be an ENGVAR thing.
No, I think that's just clumsy on my part. Took your suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an American topic, should it be “favored” rather than “favoured”?
Sigh. Yes, fixed. Thirty-plus years in the US but old habits are hard to break. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything more recent than 2020 for circulation figures?
These come from Ashley, who has nothing past 2020, but I know he got them from the audited circulation statements that the US requires all magazines to provide once a year (to help prevent defrauding advertisers about the circulation). In theory I could get the 2021 and 2022 figures from whichever issues of the magazine carry them, but I don't have copies and I hope it's OK to stick with the book source's limitations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

“While Davis searched for a buyer”: it can just be “he” here
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“price did rise again”: “price rose again”?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scithers

Should the ellipses in the Asimov and Shirley quotes conform to WP:ELLIPSIS?
Done, I think -- I always forget that one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Asimov's readership included many readers who”: you can just say “included many who” to avoid the double “reader”.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy

“canceled” rather than “cancelled”?

Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s my lot: I hope these help. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful; thank you. All done except where noted above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy this meets the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the diagram, and see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Used upright=2.5 on the chart. I think the use of colour is OK, since all the information conveyed by it is also given in the text (in the bibliographic details section). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added the date information to the caption of that grid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The usual parade of nit-picks below: please take as you find, and many are very much within individual taste and discretion. On the referencing, I'll return the compliment of averring that the system used is not totally mad, though I can't see a good reason not to do the citations to e.g. Ashley via the SFN template. A good piece of work; I never knew how cut-throat sci-fi editing could be! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Making a start below; more tonight since I don't think I'll have time to finish this morning. The compliment is of course appreciated (I think my choice of "utterly mad" was because of this work of art). I have never used sfn, partly from inertia but also because it used to be very unfriendly with the visual editor, which I'm addicted to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

and switching to monthly publication within a couple of years: is this seen as a sign of success? If not, suggest splitting into a second sentence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- more frequent publication requires readers to spend more so reader support has to be stronger. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scithers favored traditional stories without sex or obscenity; along with frequent humorous stories this gave the magazine a reputation for printing juvenile fiction, despite its success.: two nits here. Firstly, how "traditional" is sex-free sci-fi, or indeed are sex-free stories: should this word be cut, or is there more context (were sexy, obscene sci-fi stories becoming a trend?) Secondly, juvenile can mean full of sex and obscenity as well as for children; suggest rephrasing as those are quite substantially different. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut one use of "juvenile"; another is in a quote which I think is worth keeping, and a third use refers fairly directly to that quote so I'd like to keep that too. Re your first point: genre sf began in the pulps in the 1920s and 1930s, when even the sexiest stories had to content themselves with phrases like "the swelling glories of her firm breasts", and the sf magazines were much tamer even than that. By the 1960s sex was showing up, sometimes quite explicitly, in some sf (e.g. New Worlds which published what became known as New Wave science fiction) but this was very controversial within the field. Per Vanamonde's suggest below I added Ashley's comment about Scithers wanting to avoid New Wave sf: perhaps that link helps? So yes, some sf (particularly in book form) was starting to include four-letter words and to include sex as much as any other genre might, but someone who was a fan of "old-fashioned sf" would be someone who preferred the sexless protagonists of 1940s and 1950s magazine sf. I can source most of the above, but it seems to me too long an explanation to be inserted directly into the text. Do you think a footnote with a compressed form of this is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help. There's a potential elision in the word traditional between "what's seen as the norm in sci-fi" and "what's seen as the norm in society", which a footnote to that effect would help to tease out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief note; let me know if that's not enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good footnote; I'd just suggest giving a chronological range to the pulp era. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Isaac Asimov's connection with the magazine isn't actually set out in the lead: we have "Asimov defended McCarthy's choices in an editorial", but that seems to be the first mention of him. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I've added a mention in the second sentence. Is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is still a bit buried: the key point to get across here, I think, is that Asimov is basically only a name (and an editorial or two?) as far as the running of the magazine is concerned. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking for. (Asimov did write editorials for most issues for many years, but Ashley doesn't come out and say anything like that so I didn't mention it.) Essentially the magazine wanted to use his name for marketing, and no doubt they paid him for the privilege, but he had no offical editorial function except for writing editorials. He might have been listed on the masthead with a figurehead title of some kind. The lead says the magazine used his name, and that he gave consent. Are you saying that it should be clearer he was never the editor? The editorial succession is given in the lead but it's true that the reader wouldn't know that Asimov was never the editor until the end of the lead. I don't think I ever thought about conveying that point, but doesn't the fact that the first editor is named in the first paragraph do that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose an uneducated reader would assume that a magazine called "Asimov's" had, well, something to do with Asimov: we end up realising that he had almost nothing to do with it, but that comes really by process of elimination, as we hear about all the things we're not told he was doing. From the article, I'm surprised even that he wrote regular editorials: the text presents his one on the editorial controversy as something unusual. Can we get a comment in to the effect that "although the magazine bore his name, Asimov had little formal involvement with it other than writing [occasional? the?] editorials?" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Looking back through the sources, I found one that attests he was given the title of "editorial director" and mentions his editorials. I've added that to the lead plus a supporting sentence in the body in this edit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have vol I/4 at hand and can confirm that Asimov was listed as the editorial director at the beginning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a leading market for science fiction writers: not sure market is quite the right word here; it would normally mean something like "set of customers" in this context. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the word used in the trade and the sources, so I'd like to keep it. From the point of view of a writer, markets are places where one can sell one's work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I started to realise as I read on that it does seem to be the term used in this context. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dozois' tenure: one of my least favourite parts of the MOS, MOS:POSSESSIVE, would prefer "Duzois's". Ditto, later, a few examples of e.g. Scithers' refusal. We do follow MoS for Willis's, so should be consistent whatever we decide to do. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The last "s" is Dozois is silent so there's clearly no reason not to have the extra "s" there. I could have sworn the MoS had an exception for names ending in a voiced "s", but apparently not, so I made the change for Scithers too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We never actually say in the lead that Sheila Williams took over as editor in 2004, which is odd given how carefully every other editorial transition is sketched out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to move that into the last paragraph of the lead (which is a little short) to keep the chronology in order, but I can also see the merits of doing the editors as a block. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to leave it where it is -- the last paragraph is just about the ownership and I think that excuses the chronological shift. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

Isaac Asimov visited the offices of Davis Publications: Suggest clarifying that these were in New York, as it's important for the Scithers story later. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asimov was concerned about the potential impact on the two of the major science fiction magazines of the day: should be on two of the..., I think, or on the two major... UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink Condé Nast?
I ended up cutting it; see the next reply. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This took longer to achieve: suggest cutting; it adds little and it's not obvious in context what the comparison is here (longer than what?) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it I cut the mention of Analog here completely; the transaction is important in the history of sf and of Davis Publications, but it had little effect on Asimov's. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a local team of first readers to help read the incoming manuscripts: first readers might be WP:JARGON: is there a wiktionary link or explanation that can be made? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to publisher's reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sheila Williams, then an editor at Penny Press, these subscriptions were valuable because "they came direct to the publisher instead of going through a middleman. They didn't increase the number of subscribers, but they were very good for the bottom line": this is quite a long quotation, but doesn't seem to be saying much: Williams seems to be simply saying that this measure did not significantly affect the number of subscribers, but ensured that the publisher could keep more of the proceeds by selling without an intermediary. Would it be better paraphrased than quoted? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rereading I agree. Shortened and paraphrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contents and reception

Second ellipsis in the first quote has an extra dot. I'm not sure it's necessary to start a quote with an ellipsis here (few readers would assume that it was the first words of the piece otherwise), but very much a matter of individual taste. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which was later turned into a film, Millennium.: worth including the date? There's quite a long gap, so good to dispel any assumption that the publication and the filming were too closely linked. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"spoofs and parodies and occasional limericks": are we quoting Ashley here? It's not totally clear in context: suggest putting Ashley's name before both quotes if so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's from Ashley -- restructured a bit to try to make that clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scithers bought the first published story of many writers over his tenure: This sentence doesn't feel right to me. For one, I think we need the plural stories ("Scithers bought the left kidneys of many writers..."). However, it still sounds a bit odd: maybe we could rework and say "Scithers bought stories from many writers who had yet to be published"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "stories" -- I think both are acceptable grammar, but I'm OK with the plural. The sentence is difficult to recast: the term "first sale" is the common way to refer to this, but that's used later in the sentence. The subject of the verb really has to be Scithers, so the only option left is a circumlocution, but that slows down the sentence even more than "first published story" does. Can we leave it as is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me. Point taken on "first sale" as a term of art (similar to "market" in another example here). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand four-letter words in context and see the link, but MOS:NOFORCELINK advises against this one. Suggest "profanity" or similar. We should also drop the preceding comma unless we mean that everything Scithers published was either traditional or a four-letter word. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "profanity" and removed the embarrassing comma. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"nothing too challenging or revolutionary".: should really be attributed in text per WP:NONFREE. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Unto the Locust: we normally decapitalise prepositions under 5 letters in title case, even (MOS:CONFORM) if the writer doesn't. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks odd to me that way, but done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
letters poured in objecting to the language: a slightly buried lead; it would be good, if we can, to explain exactly what Like unto the Locust does wrong. Given that we use the word bullshit in the next few sentences, I don't think we should be worried about mincing our words here! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed per Vanamonde's comments since you wrote this, I think -- now says "profanity". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of Ashley in this section. Appreciate that the source base might be limited, but has anyone else ever written an opinion about this magazine?
The only other sources are not really survey works in the way that Ashley's books are. Almost every issue of the magazine will have been reviewed in Locus, the sf publishing trade journal, and there are probably reviews to be found in the competing magazines too. There might be comments in the various annual "Best of SF" anthologies about the magazines, including Asimov's, but again those would be specific to that year. He's been doing research into sf magazine history for nearly fifty years, and since he's the expert he gets called on to write chapters. For the older magazines I've written about I've found quite a few other sources -- memoirs by 1930s and 1940s figures in the field, and so on -- but nothing that covers the last forty years. Until his last book, The Rise of the Cyberzines, I had very little to draw on for most of the magazine's life -- just the online SF Encyclopedia entry, which he is the main author of too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be worth including if any writers in Locus or so had an opinion vastly different to Ashley's (say, for instance, they made a comment about how crushingly serious everything in Asimov's was getting), but I appreciate that it would be a rather massive endeavour to comb through the source material. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest wikitionary-linking schlock. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
author reaction to her habit of heavily editing their manuscripts: Could we be clearer on reaction: it sounds like we're hinting that this was generally a bad reaction? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they hated it. The more common practice in the magazine world is for the editor to send back the ms with a list of what they think needs to be fixed. Apparently that's not the case with book editing. Authors don't like having to rewrite, but they generally like it better than seeing their beautiful prose mangled by an editor who did not consult them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two stories in the next issue featuring street violence: Norman Spinrad's "Street Meat", and Octavia Butler's "Speech Sounds", and McCarthy introduced: once you've split off a clause with a colon, it's got to be the last clause. You can separate the clause with dashes instead, or simply break the sentence after "Sounds", which makes for a shorter and so more readable set of sentences. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took the second option; you're right, that was clumsy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am... unconvinced... about the square in the title of "Press Enter", but will swallow my discomfort if secondary sources use it in this kind of prose. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do -- in fact having checked a handful I can't find one that doesn't use it. It's supposed to be a computer cursor as they appeared on old 1980s computers -- here is an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
appeared in all that year's "Best of" anthologies: this doesn't sound very precise: I assume it didn't appear in the Best of British Nature Writing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it "Best of Science Fiction". I was hoping this would be obvious from context, because the actual titles of these annual anthologies varied in trivial ways -- "The 1985 Annual World's Best SF", "Best Science Fiction of the Year 14", "The Year's Best Science Fiction: Second Annual Collection", "Terry Carr's Best Science Fiction of the Year", to name the four from 1985. I think it's OK expanded, though, and as you say the short version allows a misinterpretation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a 1995 review of Butler's collection Bloodchild and Other Stories described it as "one of the genre's undisputed classics: assuming that it is "Bloodchild" (rather than the whole collection), suggest swapping. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd decapitalise "Cutting Edge" whatever Duzois (or Ashley) do (MOS:CONFORM). On which, it's not clearly stated in the text who said this, and it needs to be for WP:NONFREE. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decapitalized. I can add inline attribution if you insist, but NONFREE says "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline)". I think the "or" means you can either attribute or cite. Of course it has to be unambiguous -- three cites after a quote don't tell you who said it -- but here I don't think a reader could interpret this any other way than that the quote is from Ashley. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in this context, NONFREE means "attributed or cited [depending on which of the two is required by the specific context]." Going into the details, the "unacceptable" uses include Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source, with no exception for brevity; WP:CLOP then has Limited quotation from non-free copyrighted sources is allowed, as discussed in Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. Quotations should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author. It's not beautifully clarified in NONFREE, but I think attribution is still needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think this can lead to very ugly sentences, such as when a section on the critical reception of a film gives four or five short quoted phrases in a sentence. Attributing each one inline makes the sentence unreadable. I might start a conversation at one of the relevant talk pages though I know the interpretation you give has its partisans. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement with any of that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly's column, "On the Net", began in 1998, and Silverberg's "Reflections" started in the July 1994 issue.: suggest swapping the names so that these go in chronological order. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer chronological order for this sort of thing, but this was deliberate, so see if you still think this needs to be switched when I explain. If I switch the order I have to say 'Silverberg's column... Kelly's "On the Net"' to avoid repeating "column", since I have to use it for the first one I mention. Then the second sentence more or less has to repeat "Silverberg's column". This struck me as ugly enough to justify the inversion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
Dozois's editorship was well-regarded in the field: drop the hyphen, as it's not in opposition with a noun ("Duzois was a well-regarded editor" but "his editorship was well regarded".) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
according to Ashley and science fiction critic Peter Nicholls: we've earlier referred to this source by its title; there's no problem with giving the same source two different names, but it seems a bit odd. There's a typo in the quote as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the typo and made the references to the source conform. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section on Williams seems rather short, given that she's been there nearly two decades. Most obviously, it's missing the parade of names and titles we saw with the other editors. Do we know why she won two Hugos - what were her particular achievements? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look at The Rise of the Cyberzines and there's not much there. Ashley quotes her plans for the magazine, but doesn't cite any stories; he just says she brought back the letter column and an occasional new non-fiction column but "otherwise Asimov's sailed on as strongly as before". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do Hugo awards come with any sort of blurb or citation? Appreciate that there may be a sourcing issue here: that some of Williams' career simply postdates Ashley's research, and he's the main source for nearly all of this. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No -- see here for the official page listing one of Williams' awards, for example. The nominations are made by votes submitted by the membership of that year's World Science Fiction Convention, and the final vote is made by balloting the same group; there's no recommendation process that generates any text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally priced at $1.00, and as of 2023 each double issue is priced at $8.99.: sounds as though we're missing some price changes in the middle, unless things got a lot more expensive this year. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried adding details of price changes to magazine articles but once you're into the 70s and 80s the price changes can be almost yearly, and it's not that interesting to the reader to list. Price changes can be very important to a magazine -- dropping the price can launch a magazine's circulation into the stratosphere, as happened with Munsey's Magazine, and a price increase can tank circulation. Here the increases mostly reflect inflation over the last four decades. Ashley does mention some page size/price management that was done by Penny Press and that's covered in the publication history section, though without mentioning the actual prices of the time because they're not needed to make that point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we say something like "rising steadily to $8.99" to be clear that this is a series of changes, rather than just one? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done; the existing citations were good enough for me to do this easily. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these -- I really appreciate a close reading like this. I will tackle these tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few replies with some thoughts, but I'm mostly happy here - a very interesting article and impressive work of making the best of limited sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another pass completed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And over to you one more time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support: the Asimov (lack of) connection was my last real sticking point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from MyCatIsAChonk

Looks like others got to the prose, I'll do a source review. No spotcheck needed, will focus on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a translated title for Barcelo 2015?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wl Mike Ashley, Isaac Asimov, and Norman Spinrad in the sources
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 4, 8, 11, 16, 26 are listed as dead but aren't dead for me
I fixed 16 and 26, but left the others and marked two more (22 and 29) as dead even though they're not. I can change this if you think it's necessary, but the issue is that the URLs for that website are autogenerated from a database and use sequential numbering, which means that as more entries are made in the database and the pages are regenerated, the URLs still work, but show different data. So the "live" version of the URL will probably never go down, but is unreliable as a reference. I don't think marking them as dead is a great way to handle this but I can't think of a better option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see- that seems like the most practical way to handle it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All citation titles must use the same casing per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
Not sure what you're referring to here -- maybe to Barcelo? If so, shouldn't I follow the capitalization appropriate to the language? I did use English title caps for the translated title I just added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, I was referring to the casing differences between the various cited websites (e.g. ref 28 uses sentence casing but ref 22 and many others use title casing). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- I didn't notice that but you're right. I've always thought of CONFORMTITLE as relating to the weird emphasis or allcaps that you sometimes see in web titles and newspaper headings, but I see now that it explicitly talks about sentence case vs. title case. Would it be OK if I left it on the basis that the TV one is a news source and the others are web sources? In fact it's that way because I didn't notice, not because of any conscious decision, but saying that allows me to leave the titles as they are formatted on the source, which I would like to do. If you don't think that's appropriate I'll make the Wood TV8 source title case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok to leave it as is- I myself was confused about this rule recently, and a discussion at the FAC talk clarified it for me after I made this comment. All good now. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 28's publisher should be written "WOOD TV8" since it's a TV station
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 39: What exactly does the sentence following "Barcelo 2015" mean? I've never seen this in a citation before
The information cited is in Barcelo, but the Google Books preview doesn't give page numbers, so the intention is that the user follows the link and then uses the "Search inside" feature of Google Books to find the supporting text. I've seen similar approaches to citations a couple of times. I don't think it would be right not to give a page number and also give the reader no way to find the supporting material. I'm open to any other way to do this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, makes sense now. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Galactic Central reliable?
See here -- Stephensen-Payne runs the site and he is a highly respected bibliographer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, that's all I got, nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-permanent marker from TR

I suspect this review will attract quite enough contributions to carry it into FA, but if any more should be needed, please feel free to prod me. Tim riley talk 18:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim -- always glad to see your comments and appreciate the offer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

There isn't a shortage of attention here, but it's too interesting to pass up. Comments below, I dropped in a few wikilinks, but please feel free to remove these if you dislike them. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Davis asked him not to submit fiction to any other magazines." A quick perusal of Asimov's bibliography shows several works of fiction in other magazines; mostly Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine, but a few SF ones as well. Is there further detail you can supply here?
That detail comes from Asimov's autobiography. EQMM was Davis's so I've changed it to "competing magazines" (I was avoiding the word because it's what Asimov uses in the source, but it's really needed for clarity). For the sales that were to competing magazines, there's nothing more about it, unfortunately. I don't know if some of the other published stories were already promised or sold, or if the agreement was relaxed or ignored, so I don't think I can say more. I thought about adding something to the effect of "though in the event he did publish sf elsewhere" but I don't think it's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think a note of the sort you were considering would be very helpful, but it's not a huge deal.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Ashley has some speculation about the substance of the disagreement between Dozois and Scithers; I wonder if that's worth summarizing, perhaps with in-text attribution to Ashley?
I thought about this quite a bit but was unable to find a natural place for it. I think if it goes anywhere it would have to be at the end of the first paragraph of the section on Scithers, after the "As a result ..." sentence. I could make it something like "... despite the competitive rates of pay. Ashley suggests that when Dozois left the editorial staff after only a year, it was because he wanted to acquire stories that were more sophisticated than the material Scithers preferred." It's reporting speculation, but Ashley is the best source possible for this. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds good; as you say it's speculative, but speculation from the recognized authority is admissible when informative I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you favor a double space after the period, but it's not entirely consistent; I fixed a few.
Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest breaking up the sentence beginning "Scithers had been announced..."
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Moloney...relied on McCarthy for much of the editorial work. At first Moloney edited the stories heavily..." this is a seeming contradiction?
I cut the first sentence -- I think when I wrote it I had not yet given the details of the proof editing and the resulting protests, which led to Moloney relying on McCarthy, so this is a summarizing sentence which is no longer needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.
"She was succeeded in May 1985" you've explained every other editorial succession; do we not know why this happened?
Ashley gives no details, unfortunately. I tried some sources on McCarthy but found nothing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"eliminating the thirteenth issue each year," is somewhat redundant to the rest of the sentence; could be condensed, I think.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"with no change in price." this seemingly contradicts the price increase just covered...
That price change was in 1996; this sentence refers to 1998 -- is that not clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is upon re-reading, no issue here.
"but this was not always the case" I'm not entirely able to follow this.
I see this is a bit compressed. De Camp, Clement and Williamson were "older writers" who could fit in with Scithers' constraints; Pohl was also an "older writer", but he did not fit in with those constraints. If I made this "... by another writer of the older generation, Frederik Pohl ..." would that be clearer? Or is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would certainly help, but I think what's throwing me is that the "this" could refer to older writers fitting Scithers' preferences, or to those three writers specifically producing material that could fit in a 1950s magazine. I'm not able to think of an easy fix, but perhaps you could expand that fragment into "but the stories of other older writers were sometimes at odds with [something]"? Again, only a minor hangup.
I've had a go at this; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm betraying my ignorance here, but was it typical for non-editors to write editorials? Or was Asimov's a one-off?
As a general rule, either there was no editorial or the editor used it as a soapbox of one kind or another. Guest editorials certainly happened, but a situation like Asimov's where a non-editor wrote regular editorials was unusual, but then the title of the magazine made the relationship unusual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If sourceable that may be worth mentioning, but I suspect it is not...
Not, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley has an interesting fragment about "It was not to be one full of stories trying to put the world to rights, nor to be full of experimental or New Wave material." I wonder if that's worth incorporating?
I take this to be Ashley's summary of Asimov's editorial in the first issue. The article quotes a bit of that: 'In an editorial in the first issue, Asimov said "... we will lean toward hard science fiction, and toward the reasonably straightforward in the way of style .... We will have humorous stories and we will have an occasional unclassifiable story".' Ashley quotes this too, on the same page; I didn't want to dwell too long on the point because the whole paragraph is about the style of the early stories. Still, I agree it's a nice quote. I could add it with some connective tissue if you don't think it would make the paragraph too long. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be nice to have...I don't love the "hard science fiction" label, as you're probably aware, and while Asimov clearly had a specific meaning in mind it would be nice to illustrate it a little more.
Had a go at this. I broke the paragraph there since it was getting a bit long. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"February 1983, the second issue with McCarthy's name" to the lay reader, "February 1983" seems like a date, and one needs to re-read the sentence to understand it. I wonder if this could be rephrased.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence beginning "Allen Steele and Mary Rosenblum..." strikes me as very different topically from the rest of its paragraph (you taught me to watch for stuff like this...) I can't think of a better place to slot it, but perhaps you can?
Nice of you to say so! Yes, it is, as written; I meant it to be another angle on Dozois's tenure. I've turned the sentence around so it starts with Dozois; does that help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a lot smoother.

That's all I have, I would support on prose and comprehensiveness. The nature of the subject makes searching for sources difficult, but I did a sweep and found nothing, FWIW. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; very useful, as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, sourcing, and comprehensiveness, notwithstanding a couple of minor replies above. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- a couple more replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.