Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Satellite Science Fiction/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 February 2019 [1].

Satellite Science Fiction[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite was one of the many science fiction magazines launched in the 1950s, and by no means the worst. Its main claim to fame is probably that it published Philip K. Dick's first novel, The Cosmic Puppets. The publisher, Leo Margulies, was a veteran of the magazine publishing world, and kept it for a couple of years before making the fatal mistake of changing from digest format to letter-size, in an attempt to get more exposure on newsstands. Sales did not compensate for the increased production costs and the magazine was closed down in 1959. Interestingly, the June 1959 issue was in galley proofs when the decision was made, and four copies are known to survive, making it one of the rarest of all science fiction magazines.

A note on sources: the article uses both the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (ISFDB), and Galactic Central. For the ISFDB I'll repeat the argument I used at an earlier FAC, which was accepted there: "the strongest argument I can make is to quote the online Science Fiction Encyclopedia (SFE3), which is an authoritative reference in the field. They mention the ISFDB in two articles: Bibliographies and Online SF Resources. The bibliographies article in particular says that the ISFDB has superseded Reginald (a standard bibliography in the field); it does give caveats about pre-World War II publications, but that doesn't apply here." For Galactic Central, there is an article in SFE3, which I hope establishes the reliability of the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Drive-by comment here. The properly-hyphenated ISBN for the Sherman source is 978-1-61827-298-0. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will review more later. Refs seem fine in general. Kees08 (Talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've replied above but it's my wife's birthday and I'll probably have to wait till tomorrow to have time to make the suggested changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may all be here, in case it helps. Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through old newspapers to see if the topic is reasonably covered. It only takes a second to clip the articles, and I will put them in a bulleted list below. Do not feel like you need to use them, you can if you want, I am only listing them in case it helps you.

For some reason the site is slow right now, those are the only two I saw though. Kees08 (Talk) 03:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these. The first one seems to be similar to the one that Sherman is quoting; I think I'm better off with Sherman since he's a secondary source. The other one is just a casual mention; interesting in the context of the history of sf magazines, but I don't think there's anything there for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may have given pushback on the use of Internet Speculative Fiction Database, but based on what it is citing, I am okay with it. It is only used to cite the artist names, which might not need to be cited anyways (since presumably they are in the magazine near the front cover). The rest of the sources seem appropriate. I do not know of any other sources that could be used for the topic, and was unable to find any when I looked. Therefore, the source review is complete, and passed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I will take care of this too. Kees08 (Talk) 04:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing 1956 copyright renewals, the first two images are licensed appropriately and the copyright was not renewed (not surprising for a defunct magazine). I found no renewals for the 1959 cover image either, so the copyright is fine there.

Captions are good. Alt text could be added if you want. Should just have to fix the source file and the image review will be complete. Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added the source page. I added alt text; I just made it "photograph" since screen readers will read the caption immediately after the alt text, so there's no benefit in repeating that information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, support on images. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Not sure I will do a full review that ends with a support/oppose, just had a couple of comments and needed a place for them (for now). Kees08 (Talk) 06:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Common date format (29 January 2018 vs January 29, 2018)
  • Missing a space here right? reprint:John Christopher's The Year of the Comet

Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you be willing to spell out science fiction? Sf historian Mike Ashley
    I prefer to use an abbreviation in most of these articles because it can get quite tedious for the reader to read "science fiction" spelled out in full repeatedly. It's less of an issue in the shorter articles, but here there's a quote from SFE3 that uses the abbreviation, so I think it should be introduced anyway; and if it's going to be introduced I might as well use it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • The ALT text for the lead image (i.e. “photograph”) seems rather vague, and could benefit from some expansion in my opinion. This comment also applies to the other two images used in the article. Shouldn’t the ALT text describe what is physically represented in the image, as it is at least partially intended to help blind readers (at least according to Wikipedia policy)?
    I'm fine with changing the alt text, but if you take a look at this discussion on WT:ALT you'll see some discussion about this. The alt text gets read out before a caption, so for the picture of Napoleon at the top of WP:ALT the recommended alt text would cause a screen reader to read "Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte in His Study at the Tuileries The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries" which is repetitive and seems obviously wrong. Just "painting" would work there, or a physical description. The linked advice from the talk page is not much more helpful. I was thinking that the key point here is that this is a cover of the magazine, which the caption says, so it made sense to just say "photograph". I don't think it's very useful to describe the details of the cover art, though I'm fine with doing so if someone thinks that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely understand your point, and I will leave that matter up to other editors. It may be helpful for a blind reader (or one with some sort of visual impairment) to know what the magazine cover looks like, but I do understand your point about it. I have never really delved into the conversations about ALT text so I am not that familiar on how they are really used or even received by the target audience. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following is more of a clarification question than a suggestion/recommendation. For this article, you have included the volume/issue table in the “Bibliographic details” section, though I have noticed this table was placed in the “Publication history” section for other articles, such as The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Amazing Stories. I was just curious about the difference for this particular article?
    To be honest, I put those tables wherever I can make them fit! When the table is small I usually put them in the "Bibliographic details" section, which is probably the natural place. That's usually the smallest section, though, so for magazines with long histories I sometimes have to put them in the "Publication history" section. I try to keep them out of the "Contents and reception" sections, since they relate to the physical magazine rather than the contents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me, and I had thought that would be the case. The table placement for this article makes perfect sense, but again, I was just curious to know as it is helpful to learn from different approaches. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only two points that stand out to me, although I would be interested if anyone ever creates an article for the red links in the article (Michael Shayne Mystery Magazine and The New Review). I do not feel comfortable or experienced enough to do a full review, but I just wanted to help out a little. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review anyway. I might one day create either or both of those articles; I have a biography of Margulies that would help with the former, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to respond to both of my points. From what I read, the prose looks good so I do not see any glaring reasons for this not to pass. I did not mean for my comment to pressure you to create the articles for the red links, as red links are important/valuable in their own right. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "letter-size", "digest-sized? The discrepancy reads a little oddly to me.
    The intention is that the "-d" form is used when it's straightforwardly adjectival, and the form without "-d" is used when it can be read as a noun referring to things of that size. Does that not work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is grammatical. If you like it, fine. As I said, it "reads a little oddly to me". Short of rewriting one of the sentences I don't have a ready solution, and it's not a deal buster.
  • " In 1958 Margulies was able to track down the 1894–1895 first magazine publication" I am not sure what "was able to" adds. Suggest 'Mangulies tracked down ...'
    Good point; there were two "able to"s, in fact, and I got rid of both. A cousin of "in order to", which can also usually be cut; I'll try to remember to look out for that in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Your second and third images specifically attribute the cover art. The first has a more general "art by". Is there a reason?
    Just trying to vary the language. I went ahead and made it "cover art by" for the first one to avoid the implication that it refers to interior art too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that you were going to say that he had done the interior art too. I am, honestly, in favour of varying the language, but in this case precision is better.
  • "as a result the accompanying stories were usually very short expositions of an idea or a joke" Consider removing the "a" before "joke" - it makes it seem that the story could be a joke, rather than an exposition of a joke, which I assume is what is intended.
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost embarrassingly, that is all I can find to pick at. My. meagre, sources don't have anything of note not already in the article. You have done a really sound job. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for the review; I've answered your points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A fine job. I am happy with how you have handled your sources, and so am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I always try to review these sf mag articles if I can. This is up to Mike's usual standards -- my copyedit was light, but of course if any concerns don't hesitate to discuss. The content seems appropriate to the mag's relatively short life, and I have no particular issue with the sourcing -- as Kees suggests, ISFB isn't being used to cite anything controversial, nor is Galactic Central; most of the referencing is to Mike Ashley, and that's the main thing. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

The source doesn't comment, but from my knowledge of magazines, Merwin probably was the editor to whom Clements submitted "Planet for Plunder", so Merwin would have written the additional chapters while he was still editor. It's often the case that the first couple of issues of a magazine under a new editor contain material bought by their predecessor, and this is probably an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that it was something like that, and maybe there wasn't anything to hand to fill the space created if Merwin's additions were excised. I was hoping for something citable, so I guess I'll have to be disappointed that we can't have something discussing that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Satellite_Science_Fiction/archive1&oldid=885265354"