Talk:Wonder Story Annual

Wonder Story Annual has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 15, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. I'll hopefully get to this later today. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It was successful enough for Pines to add another reprint magazine, Wonder Story Annual, later that year. The first issue was dated 1950 and appeared in the summer of that year.[8]" In the other article, you specifically mentioned that Wonder Story Annual was for longer fiction. This kind of detail is surely important; you provide a lot of background and then only a line on this particular magazine. Is there anything else in your sources?
You're right; I should have mentioned this point. I added a sentence. There's really nothing more in the sources beyond that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that we have an article on the expanded version of Pratt's novella, which may be able to be mentioned somewhere, if even only in a note.
A nice touch; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked your addition; please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The SFE3 source doesn't mention that it's expanded, and our article on it cites the ISFDB which only cites a comment from Bleiler that it might be an expansion or rewrite. I think I'd rather omit the statement that it's expanded without a better source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a few minutes, S. S. Held could definitely do with some love.
The online SF Encyclopedia doesn't have much on him, so I suspect there's not much more that can be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to page 44 of this book, D. D. Sharp's "The Eternal Man" from the 1950 issue is a reprint of two short stories combined into one; "The Eternal Man" from Science Wonder August 1929 and "The Eternal Man Revives" from Wonder Story Quarterly, Summer 1930. Could be a nice way to finish the paragraph on contents; some long fiction, some short fiction and some combined fiction.
Yes, good idea. Done. I don't have access to page 44 in Google Books, so I'm taking your word for the source information; can you just check to see that what I've done is correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick O. Waage, a professor of English, calls (p. 12) the magazine "pioneering". May be a worth a mention as another view than just Ashley's.
I can't see the source, unfortunately. I'm a bit surprised he calls it "pioneering"; in what way? It was just a reprint vehicle, and one of many. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was slightly surprised too; he may just mean that it was pioneering in that it was early, but, of course, it's not that early. He's discussing S.S. Held's La Mort du Fer; having skim-read the opening pages, it actually seems quite an interesting article, as the author recounts his attempts to learn anything about Held. I'll look into expanding Held's article based on what he writes; I may be able to scratch a DYK out of it. At the very least, it's another citation we may as well chuck into this article. The paragraph is below: Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In the International Speculative Fiction Database (isfdb) I learned that the novel was published in the pioneering pulp sci-fi anthology Wonder Story Annual, 1952, in an English translation sci-fi novelist Robert Silverberg explains was originally made—by another notable writer in the genre, Fletcher Pratt—for the Otto Gernsback serial Wonder Stories, beginning in September, 1932."
I have to say I'm sceptical about the "pioneering" comment; I suspect Waage just doesn't know the genre well enough to be making a comment like that with no further explanation. The other sources describe it as more or less the opposite of pioneering; it was the last in a long line of reprint pulp magazines. However, the translation information is good to have; I've added that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know any illustrators? Was the art original?
If my copies of this and the original magazines weren't in boxes I could tell you whether the illustrations were reprinted or original; very likely they were reprinted, since otherwise the publisher would have had to pay for new art. ISFDB gives some illustration information but doesn't say if the art is reprinted. However, none of my sources discuss the art, so I don't think there's anything I can add. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Magazines published in New York City, Category:Magazines published in Chicago, Illinois, Category:Magazines published in Indiana and Category:Magazines published in Toronto, perhaps?
Yes, done, but something odd happened which perhaps you can explain. I don't do much with categories so I'm not that familiar with how the pages behave. I added the article to Category:Magazines published in Chicago by mistake; the category didn't exist, so I went to it and put it in Category:Magazines published in Illinois. Once I'd done that I found out about Category:Magazines published in Chicago, Illinois so I put the article in that instead. I was wondering if there was a way to make a category into a redirect, since it seemed sensible to redirect the Chicago version to the Chicago, Illinois version. What I found was that Category:Magazines published in Chicago still exists, and is already in Category:American magazines by state and Category:Illinois media. How did that happen? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make categories into redirects, but we can make "soft redirects" which basically say "no, the category you're looking for is elsewhere", and bots will correct any pages accidentally put in the wrong one. I've done that, as I originally searched for the category there myself. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Can you by any chance explain why the new category instantly showed up in Category:American magazines by state and Category:Illinois media? That was the other thing that confused me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I don't have much to add. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look fine, and thanks for the review. As usual, the article is better for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy to promote the article at this time; nice work, as ever. Re. the category situation: you used { and } rather than [ and ], meaning that you transcluded the the Illinois media category onto the Chicago magazine category page rather than adding the Chicago magazine category to the Illinois media category. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. You can tell I don't do much with categories. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]