Talk:Vargo Statten Science Fiction Magazine

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vargo Statten Science Fiction Magazine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've added a PD logo image- I assume the cover images are still under copyright, and that's why you've not added one?

  I assume they are -- I don't know of a way to find out if UK copyrights were not renewed, or have expired in some way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  The English Wikipedia (unlike Commons) allows uploads of material which is PD in the US but not the source country, so if it meets any of the criteria set out on this template page it'll be PD "enough" for us. It'll be PD in the UK if it meets {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} (but some things PD in the UK may not be PD in the US). J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  I don't have access to my copies (I only have a partial run of this magazine) so I can't check for the notices, but I would be surprised if Scion didn't put a copyright notice on them. I also suspect that whoever the cover artists were, they were so obscure that it won't be possible to determine when they died. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  The presence or absence of copyright notices shouldn't matter for UK copyrights. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  OK. Well, I don't think it can be either {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, because it's only 61 years since the magazine was published, and they probably used artwork from a living artist. Or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  Of course, sorry- I was speaking generally; I agree that these covers are almost certainly non-free. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "In early 1954, Scion were fined heavily for publishing a pornographic gangster novel. Scion's staff formed a new company named Squire, and refloated Scion under the name Scion Distributors, with Paterson continuing as editor." This is rather difficult to follow. Could it be rephrased?

  I've simplified this, omitting the name of the intermediate company, Squire, which isn't directly relevant to the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could the name The British Science Fiction Magazine be added to the lead? How about the three publishers?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• "This was half the going rate at other British markets of the era" What does this mean?

  Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• "appeared in the U.S. More" Wouldn't this need two full stops?

  I think this situation is usually handled with a single period, per MOS:CONSECUTIVE, but that also suggests rephrasing to avoid the problem, so I've done that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Do we have a link for "paperback" format? (Also, I note that you link to an article on pre-decimalised currency at second mention, not first).

  I linked paperback; I didn't see anything more suitable. Fixed the links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ashley 2005 is included in the bibliography, but not cited.

  Now used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• There's a quick mention on page 100 of this book; it stresses that the publishers "tried to colonize a new niche" by aiming at "juvenile readers". However, they said that the magazine, given the fact that it was only paying half what its competitors were, "never really stood a chance".

  I think both these points are already covered -- I mention that Paterson's policy was aimed at younger readers, and I also mention the pay rate issue, which Stableford gets slightly wrong -- it didn't start out at half the rate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but embarrassingly, I seem to have dropped the ball a little with this article. I mis-cited a sentence from Harbottle and Holland, and had to go hunting for the information again; and I failed to include a couple of bits of information from the Ashley. The only explanation I can think of is that the page numbers were the same and I got confused about which book I was looking at. Anyway, I think it's fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As a final comment, I'd personally include the various titles in the opening sentence (like this) but I thought it was a big enough change that I should mention it to you... Other than that, the article's looking good. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I like that; I've reverted to your version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, great, I'm happy that this is ready for GA status. Keep it up! J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)