Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/If (magazine)

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 00:36, 5 March 2008.

[edit] If (magazine)

Check external links

A science fiction magazine that ran from 1952 to 1974. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support—It appears to satisfy the FA requirements and I could not find any major issues. It's a fine article on a subject that I enjoy, and the editor(s) seem to have done a good job of digging up the facts. There were a pair of sentences that seemed overly long, and they changed subject in mid-stream. (The sentences begin with "In a 1975 retrospective article, Gold..." and "Pohl also bought A.E. van Vogt's...".) I think they could be readily broken into smaller sentences. Finally, what is a "slick format"? I didn't see an explanation, so I think it could use one. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've split both sentences, and added a parenthetical explanation for "slick". Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In 1961, the editorship of both If and Galaxy was taken over by Frederik Pohl. Why passive? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No sufficiently good reason. Changed to active voice. Mike Christie (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that would be a huge topic -- the template lists only a fraction of them. Even "defunct sf magazines founded in the 1950s" is probably close to fifty magazines. Maybe some subset could be found; it would be fun to do. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think perhaps the lead is a little too specific - the publication information seemed a bit too specific for the lead. For someone unfamiliar with the day-to-day history of 1950s SF publishing, it was not an "amazing tale". :) I would cut the lead down to two paragraphs.
I've thought about this, and I would like to keep it as it is. I do understand that there is a welter of detail there, but the magazine has both a publishing and an editing history, and they really need to be told together, even in the lead. Is there specific information you think should be cut? Or does it just seem too long? Mike Christie (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As someone who knows only the broad strokes of SF history, I felt slightly overwhelmed by the list of names, almost all of which were unfamiliar to me. However, if you think this is the best way to present the material, I certainly accept that. You are the expert here. :) Awadewit | talk 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you add identifying tags for as many people in the article as possible (e.g. Larry Shaw)? Again, this is just a courtesy to readers unfamiliar with this world of writers and publishers.
I've done this for a few -- del Rey, Shaw, Knight, Pohl -- but in some cases, such as Ejler Jakobsson, I'm not sure what people were doing prior to the mention in the article. Jakobsson worked as an editor at Popular Publications during WWII, but I have no references that mention him from that time until UPD acquired the Galaxy Publication magazines in 1969. In some other cases I think the context is enough, or else the person's notability at the time is actually derived from the role described -- for Judy-Lynn Benjamin, for example, I believe the job she was hired for gave her her start in the field. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you provide a brief characterization of the stories you mention, especially the ones lacking wikilinks? Just a phrase or two indicating what the story is about? This will also help readers get an idea of what sorts of stories were published in the magazine.
I've linked several, and added a description of the Blish per your comment below. I was also able to find a useful comment about the Niven story "The Coldest Place" in one of the refs. I'm a bit reluctant to do this generally as I would have to summarize the primary sources, and I'd rather find descriptions in the secondary sources; Ashley does do this but not for every story. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand the desire to use secondary sources, but I think providing a phrase that describes the topic of the story would still be helpful, even if it has to be sourced to a primary source. It would really help readers understand what was being published. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've added a few; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Much better - thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the long "Publication history" section, but the style on Wikipedia tends toward subdivided sections. Is there any way to add subsections to this section?
Done; let me know if that works. I left the introductory paragraph above the subsections as it simply sets the scene. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The beginnings of science fiction as a separately marketed genre can be traced back to the 1920s, with the appearance of Amazing Stories, a pulp magazine published by Hugo Gernsback. - Would this more accurately be "American science fiction" or "English-language science fiction"?
I don't think so, though I'm open to persuasion. It's certainly true that sf as a genre emerged in the US, and fairly quickly after that in the UK. However, the alternative formulations you give would imply that sf as a separately marketed genre in other languages can't be traced back to the American 1920s pulps, and I don't think that implication is correct. It was the emergence of sf as a genre in North America that led to the replication of that genre (as a marketing phenomenon) in other languages. I can't cite any scholarship on this, and in fact would be interested to know the ways in which genres differentiated in different ways in various languages, but I don't think it would be a controversial statement to sf historians. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Something about it seems a little off to me - what about H. G. Wells or Jules Verne, for example? Perhaps more emphasis needs to be laid on genre in the statement, as these novelists are often granted pride of place in histories of SF? Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "as a separately marketed genre" was added in a previous FAC to address a similar concern. You're quite right that it's genre that's the issue here. The Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia gives a possible narrow definition of genre sf which excludes anything published before 1926 (among other limitations). However, they also use the word "genre" in referring to Wells and his contemporaries, so the word "marketed" is also key -- prior to that time there was not a self-conscious genre than knew it was different, there were merely writers who wrote what would later be termed science fiction. I'm confident that the statement's correct, but it's evidently not clear enough. A parenthetical clause such as "(even though writers had been using science-fictional ideas for many decades before that time)" might help, but that's a long and clunky way to break up that sentence. The whole sentence is a preparatory remark to set context, and I don't want to make it longer. How about making it "Science fiction began to coalesce into a separately marketed genre in the 1920s, with the appearance of Amazing Stories, a pulp magazine published by Hugo Gernsback."? Mike Christie (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
How about something like "Although science fiction had been published before the 1920s, it did not begin to coalesce into a separately-marketed genre until the appearance of Amazing Stories, a pulp magazine published by Hugo Gernsback." - or something like that
Done, using your version, which let me add the exact date quite neatly. Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of "History", please specify which "New York's" are "New York City".
I'm not sure what the best thing is to do here. Ashley doesn't say, but I am certain they both refer to the city, which is where the publishing offices would have been located. I can't change it with reference to a source, but I didn't think it was ambiguous. What do you think should be done? Mike Christie (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're sure Ashley meant NYC, I would make it NYC in the article. We want to be as clear as possible. Awadewit | talk 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Done -- I think the second reference is enough; it immediately clarifies the first use. Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Entries came in from writers who were later to become well-known, including Harlan Ellison and Roger Zelazny, but the first prize was won by Andrew J. Offutt. His story, "And Gone Tomorrow", - The "but" almost seems to imply that Offutt did not become well-known. I would reword it.
Reworded. It was a bit repetitive as it stood; clarifying that has cleaned it up. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Much better. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The success of the competition in stimulating interest in If may have been a factor in Quinn's decision to move to a monthly schedule with the March 1954 issue. - awkwardly worded
Yes; fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In 1957, American News Company, by far the largest distributor, was liquidated. - The largest distributor of what? Science fiction magazines?
They were a magazine distributor. I would link to an appropriate article, but I don't think there is one. They were a tremendous force in the 1950s market and before; they could kill a magazine they didn't like for some reason, and I've seen multiple references, only half-humorous, from sf writers, describing them as a Mafia. (Frederik Pohl's autobiography refers to the 1950s distributors as all having retired to Palermo.) If you published a magazine you had to get it to the news stands, and the distribution network was the middleman that did this. Distributors only show up in magazine history where they have an economic impact on the industry, as the liquidation of ANC did (itself quite an interesting story). I don't really want a digression long enough to explain all this, so I just added "magazine" to the description, hoping that that's enough. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What about a footnote explaining all of that? It's interesting and helpful! Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I put a short explanatory footnote in. I hesitated over characterizing the distributors, and finally decided I had no reason to -- it's not really relevant here. Mike Christie (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pohl paid lower rates for the stories he bought for If than for those destined for Galaxy - Do we know how much writers were paid for their stories?
Pohl says it was a cent a word for If, and a cent and a half per word for Galaxy, when he took over. I put in the If rate, but not the Galaxy one; he subsequently went through some complicated manoeuvres with the publisher and soon raised the rates at Galaxy to three cents a word. Would it be useful to add that in? That's a big difference in rates, and of course writers prioritize where they send stories by the rate they'll get. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I would add in the difference, yes - it's huge! :) Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Mike Christie (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • and several of the stories Pohl published were directed at a younger audience, such as James Blish's Welcome to Mars. - What does "younger" mean in this context?
What we would now call the YA, or "young adult" market. Blish's novel was about a teenage genius who built a spaceship in his backyard and is joined there by his girlfriend after she reads his blueprints. This is not serious sf intended to be thought-provoking, such as The Dispossessed or Childhood's End; it's entertainment. I've reworded it a little -- the clause order didn't seem right, so maybe that's clarified it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I would add the details you mentioned here - they will also liven up the article a bit. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we link to a wiki as a reliable source, particularly given this? (I see that it is used as a reference a few times.)
Disclaimer: I'm an admin on that site, though it's a long time since I've been active over there. I think this one is OK: the Wiki itself doesn't contain any data except index links into the database. The database is not open entry -- it used to be but that was stopped a while ago, and now all data entry has to be approved by an administrator. So I don't think it's quite self-published. It also has a third-party verification feature -- data can be marked as verified by other editors. Another key point is convenience -- if I were not to link that, I could cite everything it gives by reference to the issues themselves. Readers, however, will find it very convenient to have access to the index if they want to look at the contents of the individual issues; not everyone has a complete run of If sitting on their shelves. Mike Christie (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
But the information is not necessarily verified by anyone with expertise in the field, right? It's only verified by other random people? I don't know if that is enough for a SPS. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That's essentially correct, though the random people have to be approved by bureaucrats, of whom I am one. The RfA process is visible here, for example. I no longer promote editors over there; I am not involved enough. The people voting act as a filter to verify that the nominee is submitting accurate information; they have to have made quite a few accurate edits to the database before they are approved. I've removed the footnote to the Pohl summary biblio; it is duplicated in the Nicholls/Clute. The other footnote actually references all the individual issues as a source, and adds ISFDB as an index link. See below, on Phil Stephenson-Payne; where I suggest we ask a third party; would that be a good idea here too? Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a third opinion would be a good idea. These are tricky questions. You mentioned SandyGeorgia below - I agree that she would be a good person to ask. She concerns herself with this issue and knows the policies well. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Per qp10qp's suggestion at WT:FAC I've changed the language in the ISFDB reference to make it clear it's for convenience only. If you still feel it should go, let me know and I'll cut it. Mike Christie (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Good solution. Awadewit | talk 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this one is OK too. Locus is the leading trade magazine of the sf field and is a highly-regarded source. The particular source used here is Contento, who is one of the top bibliographers in the field. His entry in the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF says his books are "essential tools of reference". I believe these were published in hardcopy by Locus Press for many years; I never owned one, but the online bibliographies are a standard research tool. I must admit I don't know what the relationship is between Contento and Locus; he is listed on the masthead of a recent Locus with the title "Computer Projects". Mike Christie (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This bibliographic source also appears to be self-published - does it meet the criteria for a self-published source? Is there no better source to use?
This one is trickier. It is definitely self-published. The only information I am using from it is the name of "Clifford Hong", the editor of the semiprozine version of If. The site is similar to Contento, and in fact some of Contento's material is hosted there, but the focus is different and the author, Phil Stephenson-Payne, hasn't accumulated quite the resume that Contento has. It is a widely-used reference website. The only other source I know for this information would be to go to Addall, put in "Clifford Hong" in the author field, and search. You'll find one copy of the magazine for sale, confirming that Hong was the editor. Is that a reliable source? Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the other source is reliable either. Hmm. Is there really no other source that has this information? Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of. The only other possibility is a copy of the magazine itself, and I don't have one. If it were $10 I'd pick it up, but I don't want to pay $50 for it. If you don't feel this is acceptable, I can cut Hong's name from the article. I don't think it's controversial, given that the two (possibly non-RS) sources do agree with each other, but I'm OK with cutting it if you feel that's necessary. Another option would be to ask a third opinion -- perhaps Sandy, who has spent a lot of time thinking about reliable sources at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick note: I've just discovered that Phil Stephenson-Payne is now hosting the Contento anthology index! Does that change the reliability of either one? Mike Christie (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
... and I've actually just had to cite that for Pohl's 1964 anthology Best Science Fiction Stories from If, which is mentioned nowhere else. So this isn't a facetious question now. Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't access that link for some reason. By the way, the rare books library at my university has almost all of the issues of If. If you want, I can probably pull up the specific issue for you. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the Contento anthology mention Hong? (I don't think that just hosting a reliable database makes the rest of the site reliable. We want to know if the Hong information specifically can be verified in a reliable source.) Awadewit | talk 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Contento doesn't mention him, as far as I can tell. (I fixed that link by the way; it should work now.) Yes, if you could see if your library has that issue that would be great -- it's the only issue I don't have, unfortunately. Do you think you could cite your index? Or the issue itself? Mike Christie (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the specific issue number? Awadewit | talk 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the September/November 1986 issue, per this link to an ISFDB page which I've just realized gives me the name "Clifford Hong". So if the ISFDB is OK, but Phil Stephenson-Payne is not, then I can use this link instead to get his name. If you need the volume and issue number, well, the prior one (December 1974) was volume 22 number 8, so this could be 22/9, or 23/1, or possibly 1/1. The title is "Worlds of If" according to the ISFDB record. Thanks for doing this. Mike Christie (talk)
Ack! Sorry, I misread the catalogue entry - we only have up until 1961 (all of that vandal-fighting at Joseph Priestley distracted me). We'll have to find a different solution. Awadewit | talk 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found an entry in Contento that references Hong and have cited to that, so I think we're OK now. Thanks for the offer, anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. Awadewit | talk 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done! This is a solid article. The fair use rationale appears convincing to me and the charts are a helpful addition to the article. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit | talk 03:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I am happy to support this article! Awadewit | talk 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: this is the type of article I like to see featured: defunct and/or under-known topics that, thanks to a thorough and careful discussion, can “finally” get some exposure to a larger audience. The article is interesting, concise and well-organized. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Many years ago, I read the issues of this magazine cover-to-cover -- so I'm glad to see this considered as a FAC. More to the point, I do have a copy of de Camp's Science-Fiction Handbook (published 1953), which includes a comprehensive & reliable survey of the SF market & major authors up to the early 1950s, & which may contain some useful facts for this article. (If is mentioned in the book, along with many other now-forgotten periodicals.) (It's been a while since I read it.) Any interest? -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please! If there's anything you don't want to add directly, if you could add it to the talk page I could figure out how to integrate it. I went through quite a lot of reference works, and found a lot of mentions, but mostly they just commented on individual stories rather than on the character or popularity of the magazine itself, so any more info would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great! I second the statement about Locus being a reliable source. It is one of the magazines you turn to for SF news, and should be considered reliable as a source. And Mike, I have Science Fiction of the 20th Century by Frank M. Robinson, which briefly discusses If if you want a bit of variety in your citations. I don't think there is anything new in it, but it is another source if you're wanting it. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure; if you find anything interesting there, please let me know, on my talk page or the article talk page. Thanks; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Pls let me know when you're satisfied on Llywrch's and Ealdgyth's sources; it's nice to have the best possible oldid in articlehistory, "for posterity". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've integrated the material from Ealdgyth (with some help from Orangemike). Haven't seen anything from Llywrch yet; up to you if you want to wait a bit -- if you don't I'll just merge if/when the info shows up. Mike Christie (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.