Fantastic Story Quarterly 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 14, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest that coverage of Wonder Story Annual be included in this article, as it was another reprint magazine of the same era from the same publisher, and doesn't really need an article of its own. The context and background are almost identical. Mike Christie (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, all the magazine copyrights were renewed, so any usage of the covers would have to be under fair use. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Happy to offer a review. I thought of you the other day when I saw
a mention of the redlinked
Amazing Science Fiction Stories. Anyway, back to this article. Review coming shortly.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
As usual, this seems to be a solid, well-sourced article. I've done a bit of copyediting and a good amount of linking- please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn ( talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Elendil's Heir, I see you've reverted my undo of your addition of the information about Back to the Future. Can you comment here about why you think it's worth adding? This is something that might interest a reader of the article about the film, and I can see they might want to click through to this article. But no sources about the magazine mention it, so I don't think it's notable in the context of the magazine. Also pinging J Milburn, who did the GA review, for another opinion. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike C.. As I wrote on your own comments page, the magazine's appearance in this very popular movie is, I'm sure, far and away the most prominent reference to the magazine in all of pop culture, seen by tens of millions of people, and is thus significant and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I would appreciate your not deleting it again. Thanks! Elendil's Heir ( talk) 19:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Elendil's Heir
The magazine would be unknown today to most people but for its being briefly shown in Back to the Future. I'm baffled why a single line about that appearance, added to a short article like this, would be deleted. And what better primary source could be used, under the circumstances? Elendil's Heir ( talk) 14:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Elendil's Heir
Thanks for the ping. As a quick third opinion: I'd support including a mention of the appearance in Back to the Future, but only if a reliable third-party source can be identified. I agree that an appearance in a big film could be worth mentioning, but only, I think, if it's been deemed worth mentioning in reliable sources (whether journalistic or scholarly). I wouldn't support including it cited only to a YouTube video of the film. Josh Milburn ( talk) 07:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Fantastic Story Quarterly 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 14, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest that coverage of Wonder Story Annual be included in this article, as it was another reprint magazine of the same era from the same publisher, and doesn't really need an article of its own. The context and background are almost identical. Mike Christie (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, all the magazine copyrights were renewed, so any usage of the covers would have to be under fair use. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Happy to offer a review. I thought of you the other day when I saw
a mention of the redlinked
Amazing Science Fiction Stories. Anyway, back to this article. Review coming shortly.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
As usual, this seems to be a solid, well-sourced article. I've done a bit of copyediting and a good amount of linking- please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn ( talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Elendil's Heir, I see you've reverted my undo of your addition of the information about Back to the Future. Can you comment here about why you think it's worth adding? This is something that might interest a reader of the article about the film, and I can see they might want to click through to this article. But no sources about the magazine mention it, so I don't think it's notable in the context of the magazine. Also pinging J Milburn, who did the GA review, for another opinion. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike C.. As I wrote on your own comments page, the magazine's appearance in this very popular movie is, I'm sure, far and away the most prominent reference to the magazine in all of pop culture, seen by tens of millions of people, and is thus significant and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I would appreciate your not deleting it again. Thanks! Elendil's Heir ( talk) 19:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Elendil's Heir
The magazine would be unknown today to most people but for its being briefly shown in Back to the Future. I'm baffled why a single line about that appearance, added to a short article like this, would be deleted. And what better primary source could be used, under the circumstances? Elendil's Heir ( talk) 14:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Elendil's Heir
Thanks for the ping. As a quick third opinion: I'd support including a mention of the appearance in Back to the Future, but only if a reliable third-party source can be identified. I agree that an appearance in a big film could be worth mentioning, but only, I think, if it's been deemed worth mentioning in reliable sources (whether journalistic or scholarly). I wouldn't support including it cited only to a YouTube video of the film. Josh Milburn ( talk) 07:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)