This article is about another minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s; all the significant magazines from the era are now FA, so we're down to the also-rans. I've dug up everything I can find on the magazine, including a minor anecdote about Hugh Hefner.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Image review
How do you know that copyright was not renewed on the magazine?
If you go
here and click on the post-1978 link you can search for renewals. Searching for "Imaginative Tales" shows that some individual stories were renewed, but not the covers; searching for "Space Travel" and sorting by date shows that nothing was renewed from the three issues with that title.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The table is wide enough and sandwiches with the infobox, it would probably display better with non-inline formatting. (
t ·
c) buidhe04:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The caption at the bottom of the table doesn't wrap, so you have to add carriage returns manually otherwise the table just gets wider and wider. Another user removed that carriage return not long before you looked at it, making the table unnecessarily wide. I've restored it, with a <br />, so it should be narrower now. Is that good enough? If not, rather than making it non-inline, I think I'd swap it with the second image, since that's narrower.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Ref for launch date of Rogue? It's not in the text
I've now cited this to the first issue of Rogue, though I have not seen it myself -- googling "December 1955 Rogue" finds examples for sale, so I think that's OK. I had to put in the cite by hand since there's no "title" parameter to use, and {{cite journal}} doesn't like that.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Be consistent in whether Ashley short cites use date or title for disambiguation
Would it be possible somehow to link this part, American science fiction (sf) magazines, from the "Publication history" section to
science fiction magazine since it is the first time it is mentioned in the article? I like that you put the acronym in parenthesis, and I would not want the link to disrupt that. Would something like
science fiction (sf) magazine of
science fiction (sf) magazine be possible or is that just more distracting? I think the parenthesis is more valuable than the link, but it was something I noticed when looking at the article, and I wanted to raise it to your attention.
I would recommend including some
ALT text for the images, but I do not think it is required. I know ALT text has been the subject of some debate, and as someone who does not use a screen reader or has a visual impairment, I cannot really comment either way on it.
I am not sure if there is a hard-and-fast rule about it (or really ALT text in general for FA/FACs). I usually add it just to cover all of my bases, but I will leave that decision up to you.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Would a link to
fantasy comedy be helpful for the phrase, humorous fantasy, in the lead? I'm on the fence about it since the target article is not in great shape and I would not want to add too many links to the lead, but just wanted to get your opinion on it.
Good point. And having an article linked to more and more places throughout Wikipedia will hopefully encourage more people to see and ideally improve it.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
In the lead, should Space Travel be in bold since it is another name for the magazine? I am only asking because the alternative names are bolded in
Saturn (magazine).
For this part, In Hamling's announcement of the magazine, in an editorial in Imagination, would it work to say "as an editorial in" instead? I am just trying to think of a way to avoid having "In. . . in. . . " in the same sentence.
You are right. I was struggling to think of a good alternative. Your wording is definitely better (and more correct lol) than mine.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Since the term paperback is used in the body of the article, I think it would be better to use that instead of pocketbook in the lead. It might just be me, but I more so associate pocketbook with a bag or purse (and then a very silly
Jennifer Hudson song lol).
Thank you for this edit. I would be curious if pocketbook was some sort of regional/cultural difference or possibly something that just fell out of style. Either way, that is a tangent lol.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Do we know any years for when Robinson suggested the Caravan title change or Hugh Hefner meeting? I was just curious because the timeline becomes a little murky for me, especially since the lead mentions the Space Travel name change before the Rogue parts, but the reverse happens in the article itself.
It is definitely murky. Note 1 in the article points out the discrepancies in Robinson's account; I thought it was worth including anyway but I can't put a date in because Robinson doesn't give one, and per the note, some part of his recollection must be wrong anyway.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
03:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I appreciate that you are direct in your note about him being mistaken. It could just be an instance of someone forgetting or mixing up the years that something happened. I have been guilty of that in the past.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Great work with the article as always, and I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Most of them are just questions about potential improvements. I was drawn in by the cover in the lead lol. You do inspire me to one day work on an article about a magazine, as it is both a good and informative way to document this kind of history. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend!
Aoba47 (
talk)
03:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I am glad that I could help. That's the fun part of these FAC reviews, although I have definitely made much sillier mistakes than you lol. I support the nomination for promotion based on the prose. I am not too fussed on whether or not the infobox image has ALT text or not. I think it is nice to be consistent, but it is not a dealbreaker imo.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support by Ian
Recusing coord duties, just a light copyedit from me -- not a big article but I think appropriate detail given the subject's relative obscurity and its coverage in the sources. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
12:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Four weeks in and only one support. I wouldn't want this to time out, but it seems to be heading that way. Perhaps you could see if you could call in some payback for all of the reviews you do?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
"and Hamling pitched the idea of a competitor to Playboy instead" This sentence is a bit hard to follow, could have several different meanings when I read it. But after reading the intro, I understand the pitch was for a magazine that could be a competitor to Playboy. So perhaps get the word magazine in there?
This article is about another minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s; all the significant magazines from the era are now FA, so we're down to the also-rans. I've dug up everything I can find on the magazine, including a minor anecdote about Hugh Hefner.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Image review
How do you know that copyright was not renewed on the magazine?
If you go
here and click on the post-1978 link you can search for renewals. Searching for "Imaginative Tales" shows that some individual stories were renewed, but not the covers; searching for "Space Travel" and sorting by date shows that nothing was renewed from the three issues with that title.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The table is wide enough and sandwiches with the infobox, it would probably display better with non-inline formatting. (
t ·
c) buidhe04:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The caption at the bottom of the table doesn't wrap, so you have to add carriage returns manually otherwise the table just gets wider and wider. Another user removed that carriage return not long before you looked at it, making the table unnecessarily wide. I've restored it, with a <br />, so it should be narrower now. Is that good enough? If not, rather than making it non-inline, I think I'd swap it with the second image, since that's narrower.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Ref for launch date of Rogue? It's not in the text
I've now cited this to the first issue of Rogue, though I have not seen it myself -- googling "December 1955 Rogue" finds examples for sale, so I think that's OK. I had to put in the cite by hand since there's no "title" parameter to use, and {{cite journal}} doesn't like that.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Be consistent in whether Ashley short cites use date or title for disambiguation
Would it be possible somehow to link this part, American science fiction (sf) magazines, from the "Publication history" section to
science fiction magazine since it is the first time it is mentioned in the article? I like that you put the acronym in parenthesis, and I would not want the link to disrupt that. Would something like
science fiction (sf) magazine of
science fiction (sf) magazine be possible or is that just more distracting? I think the parenthesis is more valuable than the link, but it was something I noticed when looking at the article, and I wanted to raise it to your attention.
I would recommend including some
ALT text for the images, but I do not think it is required. I know ALT text has been the subject of some debate, and as someone who does not use a screen reader or has a visual impairment, I cannot really comment either way on it.
I am not sure if there is a hard-and-fast rule about it (or really ALT text in general for FA/FACs). I usually add it just to cover all of my bases, but I will leave that decision up to you.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Would a link to
fantasy comedy be helpful for the phrase, humorous fantasy, in the lead? I'm on the fence about it since the target article is not in great shape and I would not want to add too many links to the lead, but just wanted to get your opinion on it.
Good point. And having an article linked to more and more places throughout Wikipedia will hopefully encourage more people to see and ideally improve it.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
In the lead, should Space Travel be in bold since it is another name for the magazine? I am only asking because the alternative names are bolded in
Saturn (magazine).
For this part, In Hamling's announcement of the magazine, in an editorial in Imagination, would it work to say "as an editorial in" instead? I am just trying to think of a way to avoid having "In. . . in. . . " in the same sentence.
You are right. I was struggling to think of a good alternative. Your wording is definitely better (and more correct lol) than mine.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Since the term paperback is used in the body of the article, I think it would be better to use that instead of pocketbook in the lead. It might just be me, but I more so associate pocketbook with a bag or purse (and then a very silly
Jennifer Hudson song lol).
Thank you for this edit. I would be curious if pocketbook was some sort of regional/cultural difference or possibly something that just fell out of style. Either way, that is a tangent lol.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Do we know any years for when Robinson suggested the Caravan title change or Hugh Hefner meeting? I was just curious because the timeline becomes a little murky for me, especially since the lead mentions the Space Travel name change before the Rogue parts, but the reverse happens in the article itself.
It is definitely murky. Note 1 in the article points out the discrepancies in Robinson's account; I thought it was worth including anyway but I can't put a date in because Robinson doesn't give one, and per the note, some part of his recollection must be wrong anyway.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
03:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I appreciate that you are direct in your note about him being mistaken. It could just be an instance of someone forgetting or mixing up the years that something happened. I have been guilty of that in the past.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Great work with the article as always, and I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Most of them are just questions about potential improvements. I was drawn in by the cover in the lead lol. You do inspire me to one day work on an article about a magazine, as it is both a good and informative way to document this kind of history. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend!
Aoba47 (
talk)
03:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I am glad that I could help. That's the fun part of these FAC reviews, although I have definitely made much sillier mistakes than you lol. I support the nomination for promotion based on the prose. I am not too fussed on whether or not the infobox image has ALT text or not. I think it is nice to be consistent, but it is not a dealbreaker imo.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support by Ian
Recusing coord duties, just a light copyedit from me -- not a big article but I think appropriate detail given the subject's relative obscurity and its coverage in the sources. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
12:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Four weeks in and only one support. I wouldn't want this to time out, but it seems to be heading that way. Perhaps you could see if you could call in some payback for all of the reviews you do?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
"and Hamling pitched the idea of a competitor to Playboy instead" This sentence is a bit hard to follow, could have several different meanings when I read it. But after reading the intro, I understand the pitch was for a magazine that could be a competitor to Playboy. So perhaps get the word magazine in there?