Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Munsey's Magazine/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 April 2024 [1].

Munsey's Magazine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a magazine that revolutionized the magazine publishing industry. Munsey's Magazine cut its price from twenty-five cents to ten cents in 1893, and became the first magazine to derive its revenue primarily from advertising, by driving circulation up with a low price, and reaping the rewards in high advertising rates. The magazine was a stable-mate of Argosy, which I brought to FAC a couple of months ago: Argosy was much more influential in the world of genre fiction, but Munsey's had a much greater impact on the industry as a whole. The publisher, Frank Munsey, had a rags-to-riches life: half the story of how he became a millionaire was told in the article on Argosy, and this is the other half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

I'll try to find the time to review this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • I have added italics in a few spots where they seemed to be missing for magazine titles and done some other minor copyediting as well; please check to see that I did not introduce any errors.
Lead
Publication history
Contents and reception
  • "a gossip column about Washington society and politics" – probably shouldn't have to check the link to find out if that's D.C. or Washington state.
    I can add the "D. C." but the source doesn't say -- I think Mott probably thought it was obvious, given the state only joined the union that same year, and probably didn't have society gossip or politics of interest in New York. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the inference that it refers to D.C. is probably fine. If not, we would need to remove the link. That being said, we should think about how best to serve the readers here—if we leave it unlinked they may be unsure as to which is intended (they may not be as familiar with the overall context). The best option is probably to make it explicit in the text. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "D. C." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the contributors were well-known, except for Horatio Alger [...] at first the other fiction came mostly from little-known writers" – is there something I'm missing or is this a bit repetitive?
    Yes; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the policy probably gave the circulation another boost" – is this an uncontroversial supposition or should it be attributed?
    What Churchill says is "Munsey astutely sold his new magazine for ten cents. Even so, another innovation assisted him more in his climb to forty millions. He was the first publisher to make a steady policy of putting a picture of a pretty girl on the front cover of his magazine." I put "probably" in because Churchill gives no hard evidence that this happened. I didn't want to weaken it further to "may have given" because Churchill is unequivocal about it. It's not mentioned by other sources and I don't think is controversial in the sense that other sources would disagree, but I also don't know if Churchill was aware of evidence that it was definitely so -- perhaps some essay of Munsey's that I haven't read. I don't think it's necessary to attribute this inline, given all that -- I think the "probably" avoids giving the reader too strong a sense that this must have been so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is possible to provide a short gloss to explain to the reader what muckraking is, this should be done.
    Done with a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Munsey's obtaining a head start in circulation because it had taken the first move to the lower price" – I might link to first-mover advantage.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliographic details
  • I have to say that a fair amount of the second paragraph seems rather WP:Original research-y.
    I wondered about that. I decided to include it because Reed explicitly makes that comment, so I felt it was OK to indicate what other information supported or contradicted him. Worldcat shows that Harvard has one issue and part of another, and that's about it. The Library of Congress card indicates which issues were copyrighted, and I think that's a legitimate way to say those issues did appear -- it's the same as consulting an index. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Having thought about it:
    1. Reed's comment should obviously be included.
    2. The internet sale thing I think falls on the wrong side of WP:Original research.
    3. I am not familiar enough with WorldCat to say whether this is an okay way to use that source. I'll have to defer to someone else, though unfortunately I don't know who might be knowledgeable about it.
    4. Using the copyright records in this way is definitely okay.
    TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TompaDompa. Removing my coordinator hat and speaking just as an editor, I am happy to consider WorldCat a HQ RS for this limited purpose. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that seems fair. I've cut the internet sale comment. I also changed the sentence cited to Worldcat to say that almost no institutations "have any copies", rather than "have copies", to avoid the implication that any institution has a full set. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A British edition of Munsey's Magazine was begun in 1899, printed in New York and distributed in the UK by Horace Marshall & Son." – is this all that is known about it? Were the contents identical?
    Almost nothing is known of it, unfortunately. I can't find any references to it except for Galactic Central, and as you can see there they only know of three issues. It seems likely that more appeared but that's just speculation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a shame. Oh well, sometimes we just have to accept that the information/sourcing we want is not available. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious and conditional/preliminary support. As stated above, I would like somebody more familiar with WorldCat to weigh in on whether its use as a source is appropriate in the context it appears in the article. The article looks good otherwise—though as usual with these magazines, I'm not sure I would be able to tell if there are disqualifying issues. TompaDompa (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

UC

[edit]

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • Suggest reworking the first sentence per MOS:FIRST: something like "Munsey's Magazine was an American publication founded by Frank A. Munsey. Originally launched as Munsey's Weekly in 1889..."
    Yes, better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • both fiction and non-fiction departments: don't magazines generally have sections: when I see department, I think of a shop -- or was this the term used at the time?
    It's a fairly standard term in modern histories -- see here, for example, or search Google Books for 'magazine "nonfiction departments"'. I don't think it was current at the time, though I can't easily find evidence either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey became one of the first publishers to put on the cover a picture of a pretty girl: this is not quite supported by the article, which says that Munsey was one of the first to do that regularly. More generally, I was tickled by the implication that other publishers had only ever used ugly girls: is there a way to rephrase?
    Added "regularly" and rephrased slightly; does that avoid the "ugly" implication? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and although this became less common later in the decade the reputation took some time to die out: could do with a look for prose and elegance: the reputation, in particular, could/should be expanded to something like "its reputation for low-brow smut".
    I don't think I can be as definite as that. As far as I can tell the evidence for this is primarily the Wilkes-Barre Public Library story (which is known because Munsey printed a response ridiculing them in the magazine). I say "as far as I can tell" because going through the sources has been a bit of a game of "telephone". I am pretty sure that at least half the sources have relied on Mott and Britt for nearly all their information. I don't know for sure there is more evidence than is in Mott. What Mott says is "[after 1895] ... anatomical display was toned down greatly; but the reputation for naughty pictures that it had gained was hard to shake off. Libraries sometimes reacted unfavorably to such reader-lure; and as late as 1898 the Wilkes-Barre Public Library cut Munsey's off its list "because of the many illustrations ... which are on the nude order". Mott then describes Munsey's responding editorial. I don't think this is enough to say "low-brow smut"; in fact these were very often (I haven't looked at all of them!) classical nudes, so "low-brow" would be misleading anyway. The body gives the story in sufficient detail, so how about if I cut the lead to just "... women, though this became less common later in the decade", and leave the reputation issue to the body? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good plan. Perhaps something about how some libraries refused to stock it -- the reputation change seems significant? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut the reputation phrase from the lead. All Mott says is that libraries "sometimes reacted unfavorably to such reader lure" and I don't think we can definitely assert any library other than Wilkes-Barre refused to stock it -- Mott might have been referring to libraries' attitudes to any magazine that carried nudes, rather than to Munsey's in particular. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The change from a price of twenty-five cents to ten cents was the start of a revolution in magazine publishing: I'd rephrase the start of a revolution (at least in WikiVoice) per MOS:IDIOM and perhaps WP:PROMO. If someone has called it this, I'd name them and keep the phrasing.
    I think it's a commonplace in the field that it was a revolution. Mott (1957) has (p. 7) "What was the appeal of these ten-cent magazines, which caused a revolution in the field of periodical publishing?" Schneider (p.76, here says "The development of the popular general interest magazine, driven by advertising revenue ... has been described as a "magazine revolution". This view, common among magazine historians, ..." Searching Google Books for '"ten cents" munsey revolution' finds half a dozen more. I would be hesitant to attribute this to any single author, but I could use Schneider to say that it is common among magazine historians to say this. Do I need to, though? I don't think we'd need to attribute a statement that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was "catastrophic" for the Ottoman Empire, would we? We'd just have to source it, and I was hoping that that would apply here. Or perhaps just add a couple more citations to support the language? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
    I'd definitely be in favour of "has been described as...": "catastrophic" literally means "really bad", which is true, whereas revolution literally means "folks in short trousers building guillotines", which isn't, so the MOS:IDIOM argument is there. More importantly, I think it's the sort of phrase that's appropriate in a magazine article or popular history, but not in an encyclopaedia: this is one of those cases where we have different editorial goals than our sources, and so shouldn't sound exactly like them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the lead wording to be "is considered by magazine historians to be the start of a revolution". The body has ""revolutionized the popular magazine market". I'd argue that neither is really an idiomatic usage; for the latter, Merriam Webster gives "to change fundamentally and completely", with "revolutionize an industry" given as the example usage. The body text is supported by three citations, not including Schneider's "common among magazine historians". I'd like to leave that as is -- it would feel finicky to, effectively, say inline that the sources all agree with what they source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before 1893, magazines made money by selling subscriptions: needs nuance: they still did this after 1893 (and indeed by selling to non-subscribers). Suggest something like "the bulk of most magazines' income came from the sale of subscriptions".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was not until 1904 that another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's circulation: Munsey's peak circulation? We earlier mentioned that things began going south, though that might not have started by 1904.
    I think you're asking if Everybody's exceeded Munsey's circulation as it was in 1904, or exceeded the peak? As it happens it was both: Munsey's never got close to a million circulation, but Everybody's did in 1904, and passed Munsey's on the way. Perhaps if I add the "almost a million" that would settle it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that would work well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine was not initially profitable, and for years Munsey was under immense financial pressure. An advertising campaign in 1886 brought a surge in circulation: I'd like to see some detail here, if it's known: how much money was Munsey losing? How many readers came in 1886, and how did that compare to its previous circulation?
    The story is told in detail in Argosy (magazine); it's a long story and as far as Munsey's is concerned it's the preface, so I didn't want to give too much detail. There's no simple number to quote, unfortunately -- Munsey was losing money, then he got credit with his suppliers because of his support for Blaine's presidential campaign, then he lost more money, then he had a brief success via an advertising campaign, then that circulation shrank again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the circulation figures not at least known? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added; unfortunately this is a case where the secondary source disagrees with the primary source so I had to add a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bangs found Munsey to be so energetic as to be a difficult man to work for: better and simpler as difficult to work for?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this time Munsey had written several novels for his own magazines, and he submitted one, titled A Tragedy of Errors, to Bangs: does "his own magazines" mean "magazines he edited himself"? He also owned the magazine that Bangs edited.
    I checked and all his serialized novels had appeared in The Golden Argosy, so I changed the sentence to say that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of pay rates of different magazines: part of a long sentence: I think this clause could be cut without sacrificing much (it's all obvious from what immediately follows).
    Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • $163.00: recommend losing the decimal places as false precision.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey was forced to borrow the money elsewhere, at 18% interest: I get the sense that that was a lot, but there's nothing here to contextualise it.
    There's nothing more in the source; the context says it was high, as you say, but I think most readers would feel that 18% would be a high interest rate almost anywhere and any time, so I was hoping this could stand by itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UC, gentle nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not a completely new idea: the Ladies' Home Journal had been launched at a price of five cents in the 1880s, and was by this time priced at ten cents,: a story of a magazine raising its prices is an odd choice as the first data point to show that lowering prices was a tried-and-tested idea.
    The most notable thing about Munsey's is that it started the ten cent magazine revolution. The LHJ was not a general magazine, so it doesn't really count as a precursor; Mott mentions it in this context because it had an enormous circulation and had started at five cents -- when it went up to ten cents it was still far cheaper than the general monthlies. Mott mentions it so he can dismiss it: despite the price and success it wasn't competing in the same arena as Munsey's. I think it does have to be mentioned. The point the paragraph is trying to convey is that it was the particular combination that was new -- a cheap general magazine, funded by advertisements rather than subscriptions. I think to cover that the predecessors have to be covered. Perhaps if I reverse the order? E.g. "This was not a completely new idea: the Ladies' Home Journal was priced at ten cents (and had been launched earlier in the decade at only five cents)"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that phrasing more effectively shows what you're trying to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though it was targeted at women rather than a general audience: just looking at the Munsey's cover in the infobox, I wonder how "general" the audience was -- particularly given our previous conversation about cover girls. It sounds like it was really targeted at men. More generally, don't most magazines have a target audience in some sense?
    The sources don't cover this explicitly, but I think the point of a "general magazine" is that it tried to appeal to all possible buyers. Certainly to men, but there are a couple of mentions elsewhere in the magazine histories that the buying power associated with the readers of advertisements in general magazines was thought to be mostly held by women. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK: if the sources consistently call Munsey's "general" and nobody has written about its specific appeal to men, then we're good here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More (hopefully) to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these; all replied to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not until next week, though I don’t have any issue with Mike’s replies above and would not wish to be an obstacle to promotion if it is felt that consensus has been established for that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • about Washington, D.C. society and politics: comma after D.C. (MOS:GEOCOMMA). Presumably, DC politics were also national politics, so perhaps "about politics and the society of Washington, D. C."?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does A. E. Fenner rate a redlink?
    I don't think so -- I can't find any other references to them. I included the name because Mott mentions it, and his work is a survey so apparently he thought the illustrations were notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest giving the date of the Alger portrait in the caption, as it's a lot older than his appearances in the magazine: he didn't look like that when he was writing for them. Alternatively, can we find one from closer to 1892?
    Added the date to the caption. For more recent portraits there's this, but it not very near the relevant date and the quality is not great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey's own novel Derringforth was part way through serialization when the first monthly issue appeared: I'm not quite clear on the implication of this: I'm mentally adding "... and so had to stop being serialised", but don't really have anything to hold onto with that. What, if anything, happened to the novel after the change? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In checking the references for this I discovered I had misremembered Mott's point when I added that; it was partway through serialization when the first ten-cent issue appear, not partway through when the schedule changed to monthly. I've fixed that. I mentioned it mainly because I think it's interesting that Munsey published his own writing -- that paragraph is "what were the typical early contents of the magazine". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An early contribution from a well-known writer was Hall Caine's The Christian: we just said that the "initial" (=early) writers, apart from Alger, were not well known. I'd suggest changing the framing of this sentence to be clearer that something is changing here in 1896.
    Changed to "In 1896 another well-known writer appeared: Hall Caine's The Christian, serialized from 1896 to 1897 ...".
  • which was very popular: a bit limp (and arguably unverifiable): what are we basing this on?
    Mott says it "was a great hit"; presumably he's referring to reader reaction in letters, but he doesn't say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The covers were initially simply a table of contents for the magazine: as phrased, it sounds like we're talking about the "Etchings" column here. Suggest "the magazine's covers were initially simply a table of contents".
    Done; and that's more concise anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiction from the early monthly issues was heavily used to provide The Argosy with reprinted fiction to fill its pages when it began its fiction-only policy at the end of 1896: this is a bit clunky. Suggest something like "When Argosy began its fiction-only policy at the end of 1896, Munsey heavily re-used reprinted fiction from the magazine's earlier monthly issues."
    Yes, much better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most style guides would write numbers under twenty in words, but there's no problem here as long as consistency is observed.
    MOS:NUMERAL allows a choice for these numbers, but I've no strong opinion myself, though as I have a maths background I probably have a bias towards digits rather than words. I can change these if you think that would read more naturally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the middle of the 1890s Munsey's became known for printing images of "half-dressed women and undressed statuary". This would seem to fit more naturally with the pretty girls on the cover: presumably they were at least part of the reason? More generally, the paragraph above this is a bit short, and I wonder if some reorganisation could/should be done around here. I'd also attribute this quote as being both an opinion and, more relevantly, important at least as much for its creative phrasing as for the information conveyed.
    I've moved a couple of sentences around; how does that look? And I've attributed the phrase inline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • , a natural vehicle for numerous halftones: I found this a bit unclear: perhaps "a natural vehicle for illustrations"? We've mentioned that they were halftones a few sentences ago.
    I used "halftones" instead of "illustrations" because of the importance of the halftones -- as this editorial points out ("Cheap Magazines") the halftones were an advantage the cheap magazines had acquired, and the ability to print a lot of them while keeping costs down was key to Munsey's' success. I don't like "a natural vehicle for including numerous cheap halftones" as it appears to mean that there were also expensive halftones. If you think the point is already clear to the reader I can make it "illustrations", as you suggest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think any of these solutions are better, and reading again there's enough mentions of halftones around that readers should understand that they're pictures. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etchings" (now including poetry): perhaps related to the organisation point above: the now reads oddly since we mentioned Ella Wheeler Wilcox contributing poetry to this section two paragraphs ago.
  • "Literary Chat" and "Etchings" (now including poetry) were joined by "Impressions by the Way" (editorials): from the order of things here, it sounds like this should have something to do with nudity, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps a further thing to look at in (re)organisation? Could we perhaps put a halftone illustration somewhere down here, as we're talking a lot about how attractive they were?
    I haven't found a halftone from that era that I think is good enough quality. See this, for example; the left hand page is the sort of thing The Independent was commenting on, but it's a poor reproduction. Re the order: "Literary Chat", "Etchings" and "Impressions by the Way" were generally text only and didn't carry nudes as far as I've seen. I don't want the mention of the nudes to overwhelm the paragraph -- Mott treats the magazine's contents at greater length than I've given here, and separates out a half-paragraph to talk about the temporary emphasis on nudes. In this shorter length I'm finding it harder to keep that discussion from being connected to the sentences that relate other changes in the content. Perhaps '"Literary Chat" and "Etchings" (now including poetry) were among the departments not including illustrations; they were joined by "Impressions by the Way" (editorials).' The "not including illustrations" could be said to be original research, I suppose (i.e. the secondary sources don't make that comment), but it's not very onerous or speculative research. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Spanish–American War began in 1898: in April 1898 -- any reason not to be precise?
    No -- done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey himself argued: I would cut himself here as needless and arguably WP:PUFFERY.
    Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Republican to the political party.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaving Titherington in overall charge: it's been a while since we mentioned him: suggest "the editor, Richard Titherington" or "Titherington, as editor, in overall charge".
    Took the first option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In return Davis agreed to pay ten cents a word for everything he bought: from Henry, or from everyone?
    Amended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • all of Munsey's magazines: I'm not quite sure on the AmerE here, but the article has generally gone for all the magazines rather than all of the magazines. BrE would go strongly for the latter: unless there's some rule I'm missing here, I think we should try to be consistent, one way or the other.
    I'm fine with "all of the magazines", and like you I'm unsure what the AmEng would be (my Engvar is now mid-Atlantic, meaning both sound right to me after decades on each side), but I don't see any examples of "all the magazines" -- can you point me at one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I brought more articles on military topics: per WP:POPE, I would suggest giving a date here (also possibly ambiguous: do we mean 1914 or 1918?) Could also link WWI.
    I think WWI is typically thought of as an overlink, but I've linked it here as better than adding a date, which wouldn't be precise anyway -- the war starts towards the end of the year, and so the first articles might have been in 1915. Mott says "With the coming of the First World War, the successive numbers of Munsey's were very martial" and goes on to give details, without dates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link science fiction? Is there a point to be made here about the (lack of) esteem in which the genre was held?
    Linked. I don't think so -- it wasn't really considered a separate genre until the mid-1920s, and the sources don't mention anything like that. I think the low opinion of sf as a genre derived from its origins in the pulps; pre-war sf that was written outside the genre magazines, such as Last and First Men or Brave New World, was not derided. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section headers on "Contents and Reception" read oddly to me. I think we really need a subheader for the C19th to balance the one for the C20th: otherwise, the reader might expect the first part to cover the magazine in general. I think the Assessment section could stand alone as a "Reception" section: it's longer than the L1 "Bibliographic details" section that follows.
    Added a 19thC section heading. I've promoted "Assessment" to level 1, but I'd like to keep the title as it is -- the most important point made in that section is that it revolutionized the magazine industry, which is not really a point about its reception. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost none of the academic institutions and libraries that have holdings of Munsey's Magazine have any copies of the weekly issues: presumably, the ones that don't have holdings of the magazine don't have any of its weeklies either, so we could just have "Almost no academic institutions or libraries have any copies of its weekly issues".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surviving copyright records indicate that Munsey's Weekly appeared on a regular weekly schedule: I think the second weekly should be cut as obvious. Could we do a routine calculation to say how many lost issues there should therefore have been?
    Cut the second "weekly". There were probably no missing issues. The history of the Weekly is so obscure that no indexes exist that I'm aware of, but Mott (who clearly examined issues) mentions no break in publication, and nor does Munsey in his 1907 account. I found a reference in another contemporary magazine that said something like "Munsey's Weekly is resuming publication", implying a break, but I have lost the reference and in any case as I recall it was vague, with no dates given, and so I was unwilling to use it. The copyright card cited from the LoC is the only source I know of that gives specific dates of issues, but it certainly doesn't list all of them, since Mott would definitely have commented on a year's break, and contemporary sources would have regarded it as restarting the magazine, not simply changing the frequency to monthly. The upshot is that I don't want to assert there were any missing issues, but I want the reader to know there is surviving evidence only for these issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titherington is still listed as editor in September 1928: should this and the following be was?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes FictionMags Index Family a high-quality (or indeed necessary) source?
    The site is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, a professional bibliographer who is highly respected in the field. Other material on that site comes from William G. Contento, who was an amateur bibliographer who published some of the most important bibliographies in the field. The site is only used for bibliographic details, not for opinions in any way -- for example, I often use it to get exact dates for issues in which an item appeared, as the secondary source may just give a year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, the cite to WorldCat for the claim that few institutions have copies is close to the line for WP:OR (or at least WP:PRIMARY) -- it's entirely possible that collections exist which, for whatever reason, aren't on WorldCat, are misfiled under another name, or so on. At the moment I'm happy it's on the right side of that line, but has anyone else put this claim into print to help us be convincingly over it?
    TompaDompa's review above also brought this up. I think Reed's comment needs to be mentioned, and once I say that I need to qualify it since Harvard does have one issue and part of another. I did also have a cite to eBay where a bound volume of the magazine was sold a few years ago; I'm sure it was real but it had to go as OR and unreliable. The existence of that bound volume is why I worded this paragraph as "Reed reports" and why I avoided specifically saying no other issues exist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen the recent batch of replies: I'll give them a look a bit later. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No quarrel with anything here, and nothing more to add -- support. Very nice work and will be a worthy addition to the Christie FA canon. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. What is this Galactic Central? I can't find any About Us or other explanatory page about who writes it. I admit that with a number of books cited I'd like to know if they have a reputation - can't find much information on them. Is there a reason why some sources have ISBNs and others OCLCs? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Central is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, who is a professional bibliographer: see his SFE entry, which praises Galactic Central. As that article says, the other main collaborator was William Contento, also a highly respected bibliographer -- SFE article here which lists his publications. I use the site almost entirely for bibliographic data -- which issue of a magazine was a given story published, for example. He has some bibliographic summary information on the magazine information which I sometimes also cite.
For the books, I can tell you what I know about the reputation of most of the books, though some I only found during the research for this article. The two most important sources are Mott, whose five-volume history of US magazines is a standard work, and Britt's biography of Munsey. Britt is, as far I can tell, the only source on Munsey's life that depends on independent research -- Britt talked to many people who knew Munsey personally. Britt comes from the world of newspapers, and could be said to be biased against Munsey; he doesn't paint a very flattering picture of him. None of that material is needed here, though; newspapermen of the era loathed Munsey because he brutally killed many of the newspapers he bought, but that doesn't come up in this article.
There should be ISBNs for books new enough to have them, and OCLCs otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some light spotchecking, what information is #44 supposed to source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had to dig through the history to figure this out. #44 is a short editorial piece by Munsey about the improvements in the magazine; he mentions the improvements in the illustratios, referring to the change from woodcuts to halftones (though he doesn't use those words). Initially this was the only source for this, but it didn't support the whole sentence, so I added the citation to p. 614 of Mott. Looking at it now, neither source makes it explicit that it was woodcuts that were the expensive predecessor to halftones, so I've added another ref to Mott which makes that statement directly. That makes the Munsey ref unnecessary so I've dropped it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I need to be more persistent in reviews. "Levey, Nathan M. (June 1890). "Comic Papers and Their Editors". The Newsdealer. 1 (4): 79–83. " is a source that I can't find much information about. The others seem fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the source; it's a contemporary periodical. It's only used to name a couple of artists who contributed to the magazine, and I think a contemporary source about the industry, like this, should be reliable for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like I have anything to add here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma (support)

[edit]

Reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: as a general observation, there is a lot of content about the price and circulation, but nothing about the editors.
    Good point; added the two named editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but "he reduced the price" now refers to Titherington; is that intended? I would link Bangs instead of Titherington if you link to only one of them, as Bangs is blue. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to link both and have now done so; and it would have been Munsey that raised the price so I've clarified that -- thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey's Weekly: I know what quarto means in books; is this something else or why do you not link to the standard book format? The note should have conversion to metric (or a comparison to ISO 216 paper sizes)
    The quarto size for books is about 10" x 8"; for magazines, the source gives a slightly different size and also specifies that it's saddle-stapled. I think this is different enough that a link to quarto would not help. Added the conversion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bangs found Munsey difficult to work for." is this just the story about Bangs and Munsey's novel?
    No; the source says "Munsey was a man of extraordinary energy. Bangs describe him as a human dynamo. The man who discovered Munsey, said Bangs, discovered perpetual motion. Munsey was all the time in and out of the office, wanting to know what his editor was doing. This practice so diverged from that of John Ames Mitchell, to which Bangs had become used, that the electrical atmosphere became too surcharged with Munsey for endurance. The immediate cause of the severance of relations between Munsey and Bangs, however, resulted from the fact that Munsey had literary ambitions." Then the story about the novel follows. [Mitchell was one of the owners of Life, where Bangs had worked for some years.) I could expand this to "Bangs found Munsey to be difficult to work for; Bangs was used to a relaxed relationship with his previous publisher, but Munsey was constantly asking him about his work"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps; that would make it clearer it was not just "publish my novel even if you don't like it". —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the same team that was running The Argosy" is it worth elaborating on them?
    I don't think so -- the point here is just that nobody was given sole responsibility for the magazine. Titherington says somewhere that in the early days of Munsey's magazines the editorial tasks were shared generally, but doesn't give any specifics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "standard" size also has a footnote missing a metric equivalent.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cosmopolitan cut its price to twelve and a half cents the next month" How did people pay half cents at that time?
    Good question. Wehwalt, can I pick your brains? I know the half cent coin was no longer legal tender at this time (1893). Do you know if there was a way to pay a half cent price at that time? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, the half cent was never legal tender, no one had to take it, least of all the government. But yes, it had been withdrawn before 1893, and there was no other way of making change for a fractional cent. Twelve and a half cents, or one bit (one Spanish colonial real) was a traditional price, including for magazines, see here, but there were not coins to effect the making of change at that point. Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course people deal with prices that can't be paid exactly all the time, by adding prices for several items and then rounding up or down; I just found it confusing for a magazine that is often the only item somebody would buy. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Newspapers.com to see if retail prices in 1893 were expressed in tenths of a cent. I didn't see anything. Perhaps people bought two different magazines for a quarter. People read a lot of periodicals in that day. Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the contributors were well-known, except for Horatio Alger" I'm not sure the "except" in this construction really works well.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What type of content did "The Stage" have other than nudes?
    The theater. Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert Lansing, William Redfield, and Franklin Knight Lane." gloss them for those of us who don't know where they are? The link William Redfield likely does not go where you want it to go; the politician is William C. Redfield.
    Fixed the link; thanks for catching that. I hesitate to give their roles because they'd take up far more space in the sentence than the names would, and where one of them had multiple roles in the government I'd need to dig up the details on when they contributed to the magazine and then determine what their job title was at that time. I was hoping "members of the government" would be enough, given that they're linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were more senior members of government than I expected. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- this will take a little longer; will post again here when it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost none of the academic institutions and libraries that have holdings of Munsey's Magazine have any copies of the weekly issues." this is sourced to a WorldCat page, not ideal.
    It's not ideal; see the discussion about this in TompaDompa's review above. Gog expressed an opinion there that it's good enough for what the article uses it for, though I agree I'd like a better source if I could find one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything at all about differences between the American and British versions?
    Nothing, sadly; the three copies listed at Galactic Central are the only reference to the British edition I can find at all. I assume there were other issues, but that's only a guess. I can't tell if they were the same contents as the American edition or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article overall, well written and well researched. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few answers where I think further follow up is needed (or just could not keep quiet). —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding items now responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The footnote for the government officials is a good compromise. Support. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to come post-Offenbach. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Munsey%27s_Magazine/archive1&oldid=1219473564"