Talk:Fantasy (1938 magazine)

Fantasy (1938 magazine) 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: September 13, 2014. (Reviewed version).

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.

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fantasy (1938 magazine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

overview

So there's not too much to talk about here. The article covers a narrow topic, does so fairly well and is referenced as well as one might hope, given the subject (see below for my largely vain attempts to find good resources outside of those listed in the article). I'd like to see it cover the impact (if there was one) of Fantasy on british sci-fi but there's only so much impact one could expect from a 3 issue run of a a magazine--a run which abutted against the second world war to boot.

If you have time and access to sources I'd like to see some of the sources I listed below incorporated into the article should they provide some novel information. However that's not a requirement and I think I can pass this article provided the style and content questions below are answered.

Howdy! Nice to talk to you. Thanks for picking this up. I'll go through your notes below and reply in more detail, but generally there's not much to say about the impact; pre-war British magazine sf died a-borning because of the war. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing. Can you find the appropriate wikiprojects for this and add talk page banners/assessments? If there aren't any (or they'd be too broad or too inactive) then don't worry about it but it might be valuable. Protonk (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

images

image looks great, NFC justification seems sound

style/layout

Should we wikilink the first appearance of "Newnes" in the lede? Also, should it be George Newnes Ltd. in the lede and Newnes elsewhere?
The sources generally say "Newnes", not "George Newnes Ltd.", but I think this is just familiarity with the material overcoming formality. I think you're right and I've made the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of unnecessarily breaking out sections in short articles but might there be some benefit to splitting the sections on stories recieved, art and publication history?
I don't think there's enough material for two new sections, but I added one -- does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One extra section works great. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tales of Wonder should be wikilinked to Tales of Wonder (magazine) unless I'm missing an earlier one
Oops, missed that; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason aside from personal preference that we've split the footnotes and the references? Normally I see this where there are multiple references to distinct pages among a small set of references but here it's a 1:1 mapping.
No particular reason -- I used this style on radiocarbon dating, which is the most recent major article I've worked on, and another editor with an academic background helped me make it consistent. Now I have the habit. I think I like it because the footnotes themselves are short, which seems simpler for the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lede summarizes the article fairly well
Would this topic benefit from a see also section? Is there a navigation template for sf magazines?
I built the navbox for pulps, which is in this article; one for sf magazines would be too big, I think. There's one for British sf magazines but it's not comprehensive so I tend not to use it, though I haven't removed it where it's been added (e.g. on Nebula Science Fiction). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

content

Not that it's terribly important but was the 2nd issue also only dated with the year?
Yes; the article says this in the bibliographic details section; should it say it higher up too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly asking for my own aggrandizement. Protonk (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The lead story for the first issue was "Menace of the Metal Men", by A. Prestigiacomo; this was a reprint from 1933..." from where was it reprinted?
From the UK edition of Argosy, apparently. Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The non-fiction piece, by P.E. Cleator, continued a series of articles he had published in Scoops..." which non-fiction piece? This sentence looks like it preceeded something else in a prior version.
Rephrased; the source doesn't give the title of the piece, just a description. I could pull the title from another source, but I don't have a reliable source to hand that gives it -- it's this but the ISFDB doesn't qualify as an RS, sadly. I have the magazine itself, but it's hidden in a box somewhere in the basement. When it emerges I'll add the title. I suppose I could add it now and source the magazine -- what do you think? There's no real doubt that this is the title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably add it at your leisure. I just asked because the sentence seemed out of place. Protonk (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Fantasy was in pulp format, 128 pages..." is it "was in" or "was printed in"?
I think either works, so I changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there external links which might be of interest to a reader? Galleries of art, etc.?
Not that I know of -- I looked too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from "Vampire from the Void" are there any other particularly interesting or notable stories to have come out of Fantasy?
None that the sources mention. The closest is probably John Beynon's "Beyond the Screen", which is interesting only because Beynon is John Wyndham, who is well-known; but I already mention that. The story itself is unremarkable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Protonk (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing

Other sources:

There's Michael Ashley's The History of the Science Fiction Magazine: 1936-1945 (which I don't see available online). You've got two other books by him so it's possible the material has been covered there
I have this; it's almost completely superseded by The Time Machines, which I've used instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Barron's Anatomy of Wonder contains a chapter on science fiction between the wars. I don't know if this covers Fantasy (as the name is a confounded search term)
Sorry, don't have this -- should probably get it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention in a letter to the editor for Science Fiction Studies 13(1) 1986 (pp. 105) about Nils Frome not being as bummed about a particular story in Fantasy as he was w/ most other contemporary Sci Fi. Not much but I've searched through their archives for 30 minutes and I need something, that journal is interminable.
Nice! I have a JSTOR account and hadn't found anything useful; thanks for that. I put in Moskowitz's assessment of the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Leif Davin in Partners in Wonder: Women and the Birth of Science Fiction, 1926-1965 (pp. 21-22) indicates (in passing only) that Fantasy ran in from 1946-1947 as well? Was it a different publication under an identical name?
No, that was actually a different magazine that also ran for three issues. No article for that one yet but I'll get there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Stableford's Scientific Romance in Britain, 1890-1950 (pp. 151, 371) may contain a broad survey of the british pulp market which might include Fantasy but I don't have access to it. He's bearish on the prospects of the british pulp market in the era.
- Contra Stableford, Richard Mathews says that the British pulp market was fairly robust in Fantasy: The Liberation of Imagination (p. 30)
Also of use may be Ultimate Island: On the Nature of British Science Fiction and British Science Fiction: A Chronology, 1478-1990, both by Nicholas Ruddick. Though I have no idea if they cover Fantasy

Sorry, don't have any of the three above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: There's actually 4 above. :) The review of the latter two is here: JSTOR 4240255. If you're looking to expand on british SF might be worth finding in a library. Protonk (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of relevant Wikiprojects; I've also ordered some of the books (the Davin, the Barron, and both Ruddicks) and will add details from them when they arrive, if there's anything to add. I'd been meaning to get at least the first two of those for a while. Thanks for the promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]