Talk:Fantastic (magazine)

Fantastic (magazine) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 15, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Science Fiction Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Archives

Archive 1

Recent copyedit

I think this copyedit is not an improvement, but I don't want to revert without discussion. Example problems:

repetition of "the company" in the first couple of sentences
changing Amazing to Amazing Stories; the sources generally abbreviate it to just Amazing
unneeded "however" added
introducing an em dash at the start of the publishing history, which breaks the flow; Fantastic Adventures was a natural expansion, not a surprise, and the syntax should reflect that
"they remained monthly" -> "they were still issued monthly" -- unnecessarily wordy

A couple of the changes are indeed improvements, but not significant ones. Any other opinions? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Hi Mike, thanks for your comments; I hope you don't mind my turning your list to a numbered list to enable clear discussion.

I was unfamiliar with the magazine (and the sub-industry generally) before I read the article yesterday. If I could clarify why I made each change:

I clarified that Ziff Davis was company, because until I clicked through to that article, I thought it was a person. I don't know if there's a solution to repeating the phrase "the company" in the following sentence. Perhaps "Ziff Davis quickly..."?
I had heard of Amazing Stories, but did not know there was a magazine called, simply, Amazing. Since the reference is in fact to Amazing Stories, I felt it appropriate—in the introduction at the very least—to 'spell out' the full name.
I believe this makes sense and should stand—after all, Goldsmith […] was unable to increase circulation… appears in the preceding paragraph. However, please go ahead and remove my "however" if you believe it helps the sentence read better.
I agree, and have removed the dash.
I don't think they remained monthly makes sense, but please feel free to revert if you like.

Thank you. — Hugh (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh, thanks for the polite note; sorry if I sounded snippy. You make some good points. I think I'll let the edits stand; I'm probably biased, since I wrote most of the article, and it's hard to see problems in your own prose. I am not a fan of "however", because I see it misused as a meaningless connector so often, but leave it in here if you think it improves the flow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike -- and you didn't sound snippy in the least. I think I'll probably re-read the article at a later date and re-think the "however," but for now I think it works well. Thanks again. — Hugh (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Errors / vandalism?

There's a long section on feces that appears to have nothing to do with this article. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. Please delete this remark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]