Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Thrill Book/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) 21:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Thrill Book[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Thrill Book was a missed opportunity; a precursor to the pulp magazines that began to specialize in fantasy and science fiction in the 1920s. It's famous now mostly because of that failure, and since it was never common to begin with its reputation has led to it becoming fabulously rare -- one historian commented that a full run of 16 issues would cost about as much as a luxury car. Despite the fact that it is no longer regarded as an sf and fantasy magazine, its reputation means that it gets quite a bit of coverage in magazine history sources, so I've been able to put together a fair amount of detail about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919[edit]

Seems like an interesting subject, and I like the selection of illustrations. I'm not an expert on this and have only had time to give this a surface read, but some initial notes/concerns:

  • I added a couple of categories. As always, revert if you feel I've done harm.
    Those look fine; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the intended WP:ENGVAR here? The magazine was from a US publisher and apparently only circulated in the US, but the dates are all formatted dmy. I don't want to copyedit without knowing.
    It should be U.S. dates; the English dates are just me being careless. I think I've fixed them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll re-read later and copyedit if needed now that I know what I'm looking for, but I'll call this one handled.
  • The references are formatted inconsistently. Some are shortened refs and some are full cites in the note, some use comma separators and others use periods, some ISBNs are fully separated and some aren't, some of the city locations for books have a comma between the city/state and some don't.
    The intention is to use {{cite book}} for the references, and short form in the footnotes for those; and to use {{cite web}} in the footnotes directly for the web page citations. Is that inconsistent? I'm pretty sure I've seen other articles use this approach, though I'm not a partisan of it and can switch if you have a better recommendation. I've switched one book cite in the wrong format to use cite web, since that reference has a more current web version. I'm not seeing the comma/period or city location inconsistency -- can you let me know which citations you're referring to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the comma issue, the first book under References has one, the rest don't. Having the comma would be typical for a US city/state combo. For the shorted vs. full, since all the refs have author names and dates (unlike some cases where a web page might have neither), I do think it would look better to handle them all the same. But it's clear enough once explained that I wouldn't oppose over it.
    The commas are fixed. Re the ref formatting: I'm not opposed to the alternative but if you're OK with it as it stands I'll let it stay the way it is. If you have an example page that does it the way you're describing, please let me know; I'd like to see it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Several current FA nominees do this, such as Night of January 16th, I Never Liked You, and James B. Weaver, if you want to take a look. But as I said, not worth opposing over, so striking this one as handled.
  • Citations 4 and 5 are to broad page ranges (18 and 27 pages respectively). I haven't checked the actual sources against what is claimed, but it seems likely that the citations could be a little more specific than that.
    I'll make them more specific; it might take me till this evening to finish this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've divided up the refs to have more specific page numbers, and it was troublesome enough to do that the process has convinced me it's unfair to the reader to give a range of more than four or five pages. I'll try to stick to the more specific ranges in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, marking this one handled.
  • The guidance at WP:REDNOT is to avoid redlinking personal names, so there are several that should probably be delinked, unless your next project is creating those articles.
    Done. It must be years since I last read that guideline, and I wasn't aware of that change; after thinking about it I see the reason for it, though it's a pity in some ways, particularly when the person is clearly notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed this myself recently. Anyhow, striking this one as done.
  • There seem to be a lot of sentences with semicolons that might deserve full separation.
    Yes, semicolons are a weakness of mine. I've eliminated a couple, but please go ahead and fix any others you feel need changing, or let me know which ones to work on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep an eye out on the re-read.
    Another editor beat me to the punch on copyediting, so I will let you respond to his comments first. Marking this one handled.

Will await responses (especially on the ENGVAR question) before doing anything more. --RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I've struck anything that seems completely handled. Will re-check for the rest on a second read. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything you mentioned is now dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry it took me a while to circle around on this one, but I think subsequent reviewers have helped keep it moving. After another read-through, I'm now happy to support promotion. --RL0919 (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • I appreciate that you have removed redlinks to author names (I understand the guideline, though I think it could be better put...) but any authors/editors with articles should be linked. Have you checked for all of them? I note you hadn't linked a magazine and a novel which both have articles.
    On looking through I just realized I had failed to include some links in the lead, so I fixed those. I can't guarantee I haven't missed anything, but I think anything that should be linked is now linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a lost-race in Africa" Why the dash?
    Fixed. I suspect I initially had this as "a lost-race story" and didn't remove the hyphen when I rephrased it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to contemporary cover art" Ambiguous- it's unclear whether you mean contemporary to us, or contemporary to The Thrill Book
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some writers now long forgotten" I appreciate what you're saying, but I fear that this is slightly too prosaic. How about something (I appreciate that this is probably too wordy) like "writers whose work is no longer read but may have been familiar to readers at the time"?
    Not quite sure what to do here. The source says "The authors featured in the first eight issues are almost entirely forgotten today. Many were ex-dime novelists, like George C. Jenks and John R. Coryell, both of whom penned stacks of Nick Carter stories." How about something like "The contributors included Sophie Louise Wenzel, who later published stories in Weird Tales under the name Sophie Wenzel Ellis, but most of the writers from Hersey's editorship, such as George C. Jenks and John R. Coryell, are no longer well-known names", dropping the dime novel details? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think the dime novel point is fairly important; it was the hyperbolic "now long forgotten" that made me think twice. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the sentence proposed above, tweaked to mention the dime novels. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked it a little further- how does that look to you? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manuscripts in inventory that" Is "in inventory" a recognised phrase? Should it perhaps be hyphenated, or changed to "in their inventory"?
    I'd like to keep this -- it's a standard phrasing, as can be seen by googling "manuscripts in inventory" vs. "manuscripts in their [or the] inventory". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been purchased for it" The "it" here (grammatically) seems to refer to the inventory- perhaps you could change it to "the magazine"?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Sea Stories worth linking? Love Story Magazine? Clues? Mystery? The Avenger? Odyssey Publications? If they're notable, they should be linked, whether the link is red or blue.
    I haven't linked these because I don't have sources that would justify it. The sf field has more sources for some reason, so any sf magazine is always going to end up with an article, but the other genres are much more patchily covered. These particular ones are hard to search for. I suspect the Westerns are the next best covered after the sf and fantasy mags but I only have one of those reference books, and none of these are Westerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reviewed the remaining Thrill Book manuscripts" Perhaps this could be rephrased so that you don't lose the "The" from the title? (Other instances of this elsewhere)
    This form of abbreviation (and others, such as referring to magazines like Startling Stories as just Startling) is standard in the sources; Murray has "In time, the Thrill Book inventory was forgotten", for example. I'd like to keep this unless you feel it's jarring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under the name "Denby Brixton"," As written, this suggests the title of the novel changed.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular reason you haven't included a bibliography table?
    I had a hard time seeing how to make it useful -- it's primarily a visual aid, showing how issues are distributed over multiple years, and showing irregularities in publication. It works well with months, or seasons ("Spring 1942") but for publications dated with the day it is a bit clumsier. I thought it would be ugly to have a one-row table, and I didn't think the reader would gain much from it. Do you think it's worth adding? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you're happy without it, I am too. The explanation seems reasonable. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category for the publisher location? Also, is there perhaps a scifi category that would be appropriate?
    I added New York. It's already in the defunct sf magazines category, though I'm somewhat conflicted about even that -- as the article says, it's not really an sf magazine at all. I included it in the navbox just because aficionados know about it and would expect it to be covered, but I believe there were other magazines of the era that published more sf. It does seem to have published more fantasy and weird stories than most magazines of the day, so it's listed in the fantasy fiction magazine category too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

A well-crafted article, but I have to point up some minor issues to prove I've read it, so here goes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Thrill Book was a pulp magazine published by Street & Smith in 1919— as a Brit I get no sense of location in the opening sentence. Perhaps insert New York publisher…?
    I made this "U.S. pulp magazine"; Street & Smith were a New York firm but since they had national distribution I think the U.S. point is the more important one to make. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quentin Reynold's 1950s history of Street & Smith—
  • If his surname is "Reynolds", the apostrophe is misplaced
    It's "Reynolds"; I've fixed the apostrophe. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • was the history written in the 1950s (if so, why not a specific year), or was it about the company during that decade? Depending what you mean, an apostrophe may be needed
    The source says the book was written "some forty years later". I know from other sources that the book was published in 1955, but I don't have a reliable source to hand, and didn't think it was necessary to give the date. I can see that just saying "1950s" doesn't really help, though, so I've cut it, since I mention the forty years gap right afterwards. I've also made it "almost forty years"; technically I don't have a cite for that but I hope it's not controversial. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total drive-by comment here, but as a worst-case option, WorldCat confirms the 1955 publication date.[2] Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format change may also have been part of an attempt to copy the format of Adventure... In addition to the layout change, the contents page was changed to resemble that of Adventure, and a question and answer department, "Cross-Trails", was begun, in imitation of a similar feature in Adventure.[18] — two "formats" in one sentence, three "Adventures", could be tweaked to reduce the repetition
    I've had a go at this but I'm not sure it's quite right yet -- take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Street & Smith cancelled the magazine after sixteen issues; the October 15th issue was the final one— clunky, perhaps Street & Smith cancelled the magazine after the sixteen issue dated October 15th.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quinn had not yet invented de Grandin himself— not sure what the last word adds other than ambiguity
    Removed "himself" (I assume you meant just the last word?). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 3⁄4 in by 8 in — I realise that a US-specific article like this does not need to give international conversions, but if the size corresponds to a named paper size (eg foolscap, A5 and the like) that would help
    It's close to U.S. letter size, which is 8.5 by 11 inches, but I don't think I can use that unless it matches exactly. The source just gives the dimensions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have consistently abbreviated US states in your references. It would help non-Americans if they could be spelt out
    Done, though I'm not certain I've not been asked to do the reverse in some long-past review. Is there a MOS guideline on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting soon, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your replies and changes. I don't know about MOS, but it seems to me that full spellings just makes it easier. Even I struggle to remember some of the states, particularly those starting with "M" or "W", and I suspect someone who didn't speak English as a first language might have more difficulty, Anyway, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • The images which are on commons should be in a category for The Thrill Book, and if there are more images they can be added to that category, with a commonscat link.
    I've added the category on commons, but I'm not sure what you mean by a commonscat link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there is a serious lack of online resources linked. There seem to be online indexes available for example. (if there is no suitable then no big deal for passing)
    There's an index here, but it's partial, and the ISFDB doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. (I have used ISFDB indexes under certain circumstances in the past, but since it's not a complete index I don't think it's a good idea here.) Are you aware of a better index online? The Bleiler index in the references is very complete but I don't think there's an online version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is public domain there should be online versions. There is https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CNJIEMj1ewcC but this is truncated. if there is none available then of course we cannot link it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As with the index I'm not aware of any online versions -- I'd be glad to link to any you know of. It may be that none have been created because the magazine is so rare. There have been two facsimile editions (mentioned in the article); they're only partly previewable on Google Books, presumably at the publisher's request, though they are public domain as you say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Ian Rose[edit]

Mike, there seems to have been some commentary on sources but doesn't appear to me that anyone is actually signing off on a source review for formatting/reliability, so you might list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Unnecessary repetition of page range for the 1985 Ashley book, in the "References" list
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the References list, why are the publisher details for the Murray book shown in parentheses?
  • What does (14), shown after the Murray book details, refer to? This book is not listed by WorldCat, Amazon or ABE – is it a private publication?
    Re both the above: I used {{cite journal}}; it's a magazine, and this is the 14th issue. The ISBN is 978-1-884449-07-9; I would have thought it would have an ISSN being a magazine but I don't really know how that works. (It's perfect bound like a paperback, but the size of a magazine.) I don't think it's self-published but I don't know much about the publisher: both Black Dog Press and Tattered Pages Press are listed, and the latter at least is a specialist publisher of books about old magazines and so on, as far as I know. I think the line between self-publishing and professional publishing can get a bit blurred with the specialist presses; they are often started by enthusiasts, and publish only a handful of books before expiring in bankruptcy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources look good and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Thrill_Book/archive1&oldid=1088821509"