Talk:Beyond Fantasy Fiction

GA nomination

Hello there! I've put the article promotion on hold because of failing 1 and 2 of the good article criteria:

-> Factually accurate? (most important)

• the article uses almost entirely primary sources in its first section, which is the one which especially needs secondary/tertiary sources. Wikipedia:No original research says: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."
• also, per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged").
• in particular, the following need to be sourced/changed/removed

• "Although it has generally been regarded as one of the best of the many new magazines launched in the 1950s, it was not a commercial success"
• "it has generally been regarded as one of the best of the many new magazines launched in the 1950s"
• "Gold was one of the very few American magazine editors to use his work, though Powers was prolific in the paperback field"
• "The cover art was often surrealist, which was unusual for a genre magazine"
• "The quality of the fiction remained high throughout the magazine's life"
• "Beyond published several significant or widely-reprinted stories during its short history."
• "the magazine is often cited as being the successor to the unusual fantasy tradition of Unknown."
• "An unusual feature of the magazine was that every story included a facsimile of the author's signature"
• "there were occasional "filler" pieces, as was common in such magazines"

• generally, when using the cite_book template, use the "quote=" parameter to quote the relevant passages if applicable. for example, if the statements above can be made using a quote from the encyclopedias you used, add the quote parameter (of course not for minor details as dates etc., or if the quote already is part of the article).

-> Well written?

• incorporate the list of significant contributions as prose. if you need to shorten it, you could move the list to a separate section.
• there is some poor lost sentence "covers were contributed by René Vidmer and Arthur Krusz" in the second section among the publishing details. seems out of place, and should be moved to the first section
• move one of the images to the lead part for identification or simply add Template:Infobox Magazine accordingly

Well, I know that's quite a bit, but remember if s.th. is not verifiable, just remove it and stick to what you've got.. Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Best wishes! Johnnyw talk 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for the detailed review! I really appreciate you taking the time to go through this carefully.

I have fixed most of your points, which were very helpful in focusing me on the areas that need attention. I would like to suggest that a couple of the sentences you pointed out are worth keeping without sources, and I also have a question about the list. With regard to sourcing:

• "An unusual feature of the magazine was that every story included a facsimile of the author's signature". This is certainly true, but not the sort of thing that is covered in the encyclopedias. Is this really controversial enough to need a cite? I could cite it after a fashion by giving the names of some of the major magazines which did not do this, referencing the primary sources, but it seems a bit clunky. I could also upload an example scan of a signature at the end of a story.
• "there were occasional "filler" pieces, as was common in such magazines". Again, this is certainly true but not likely to be mentioned encyclopedically; again, I could cite this from primary sources by giving references to other magazines issues that have this kind of filler material. I'd suggest that this is not controversial, and would ask that it be kept without further cites.

One other point: the list of stories. It could certainly be converted to prose, but I'd like to suggest that it's better as it is. The value of this for the reader is a quick scan to see "Oh, look there's an Isaac Asimov story, and a Bradbury too"; this material will be treated by the reader as reference, or background, and would be clumsier as prose, I feel.

Let me know what you think, and thanks again for the review. Mike Christie (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, I know how useful a detailed review can be, and am glad that you find my suggestions helpful!

In reply to your comments:

• the list: I think you're right, it's fine as it is. With the image moved to the top, it doesn't look that awkward any longer..
• the two sentences with "missing" citations: well, I don't really feel strongly about the issue. I think you can leave it as it is, or change "an unusual feature", to "Another feature" and drop "as was common in such magazines". Either way, I think it's OK.

OK, let`s see what else I can find to whine about ;)

• the lead: I'd wish there was one more sentence regarding the characteristics of the magazine, following the first sentence, because the lead by itself needs to explain at least the core elements of the article. I'd propose s.th. like "During this short time period, it published several significant short stories by distinguished authors, such as Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury and Philip K. Dick, and has generally been regarded as one of the best of the many new magazines launched in the 1950s. Nevertheless, it was not a commercial success, and lasted only ten issues."
• One more thing: the first section needs a little bit of restructuring imho, the info feels a bit scattered.. try to keep it a bit more coherent in the beginning. I'd suggest s.th. like this in the beginning, to focus on the concept and general perception of the magazine before going into details:

  Beyond Fantasy Fiction was planned by editor H.L. Gold and Galaxy Publishing as a companion to the more successful Galaxy Science Fiction, which it had started publishing in 1950. It's first issue was dated July 1953, in which an editorial by Gold laid out the magazine's scope, which excluded, in his words, only "the probably possible" and "the unentertaining". The quality of the fiction remained high throughout the magazine's life,[1] with appearances from many well-known authors, and the magazine is often cited as being the successor to the unusual fantasy tradition of Unknown. The first issue featured Theodore Sturgeon, Damon Knight and Richard Matheson, later issues ...

  Then continue with the list and such... then the "covert art & interior art" (maybe move the sentence "In addition to the covers painted by Richard Powers, René Vidmer and Arthur Krusz (among others) contributed cover art." here, feels out of place in the second section), and lastly miscellaneous.. If you feel that the covert art is very important/significant and should be mentioned earlier, you might mention it in the lead as well. I think, in general, this doesn't mean a lot of rewriting, more a re-ordering of the content that's already there. Hope that helps and keep up the good work! Johnnyw talk 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided to take your advice on the two unsourced statements; they don't add enough to be worth leaving in without a comment. I might add a scanned signature as that would be interesting for readers. I've also done some restructuring along the lines you suggested; I used your version verbatim in the lead, and also followed your draft for the next section. Let me know what else you think is needed. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The only statement that still seems out of place is "In addition to the covers painted by Richard Powers, René Vidmer and Arthur Krusz (among others) contributed cover art.[3]" in section 2, which I would move to section 1, to go along with the statement about Powers. Then wiki-link Theodore Sturgeon in the list and I am more then satisfied. I will have another look tomorrow, I hope that gives you enough time. Thanks for your swift responses, that makes it all the more gratifying. Besides that, I think the article is ready! =) --Johnnyw talk 18:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done; though Sturgeon is linked in the para above -- not sure if you saw that. I hadn't linked it in the list for that reason, but perhaps it's better to link again there as people will focus on that list. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, all issues that in my opinion clashed with the GA criteria have been addressed. Well done, Mike, and congratulations. --Johnnyw talk 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on the review. Mike Christie (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Magazine cover copyrights

You know, it seems fairly unlikely that anyone would bother to renew the copyrights on this short-lived (and rather forgotten, apparently) magazine and its cover art (as opposed to the stories, whose copyrights would belong to the authors). Unfortunately, this sort of thing is very difficult to document, though.--Pharos 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, the copyright on neither cover was renewed, so they're fine. Nice to have them both there. Quadell pointed me at this page, which gives directions for figuring it out. Very handy. Mike Christie (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy (lead)

• "and has generally been regarded as one of the best of the many new magazines in its genre that were launched in the 1950s." - paragraph 1
• The magazine printed some very good material, and was regarded as the best of the fantasy magazines launched in the early 1950s. - paragraph 2

Could this be fixed? -Anon 15:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done; thanks for spotting that. Any other improvements you can see? Mike Christie (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

List of University Libraries

What follows is a cut and paste from WorldCat of libraries that have this, in case we want to specify any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

US,AZ ARIZONA STATE UNIV AZS

US,AZ UNIV OF ARIZONA 1-2(1953-1954) AZU

US,CA CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV, FULLERTON 1-2(1953-1954) CFI

US,CA CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV, LONG BEACH no.1-no.10(1953-1955) CLO

US,CA CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV, LOS ANGELES CLA

US,CA SAN DIEGO STATE UNIV LIBR CDS

US,CA SAN FRANCISCO PUB LIBR SFR

US,CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY CUY

US,CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE CRU

US,FL UNIV OF MIAMI v.1-v.2(1953-1955) FQG

US,GA UNIV OF GEORGIA v.1-v.2(1953/1954-) GUA

US,IA UNIV OF IOWA LIBR NUI

US,IN INDIANA UNIV 1-2(1953-1955) IUL

US,KS UNIV OF KS ARCH/MSS/RARE BOOKS/REGL HIST KFS

US,MI MICHIGAN STATE UNIV 1-2(1953-195?) EEM

US,NC EAST CAROLINA UNIV ERE

US,NC NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV NRC

US,NY SUNY AT ALBANY 1-2(1953-1955) NAM

US,NY SUNY AT BUFFALO BUF

US,OH BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIV BGU

US,OH OHIO STATE UNIV, THE Local holdings availa... OSU

US,PA LEHIGH UNIV LYU

US,PA PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV UPM

US,RI BROWN UNIV RBN

US,TX TEXAS A&M UNIV TXA

US,TX UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN V.2(1954-1955) IXA

US,TX UNIV OF TEXAS, AUSTIN, HARRY RANSOM HRH

US,VA VIRGINIA TECH 1-(1953-) VPI

Australia UNIV OF QUEENSLAND YQU

CA,AB UNIV OF ALBERTA

Genre

Should we link to the science fantasy article somewhere?--Pharos (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Beyond was more about fantasy than science fantasy, though the latter is notoriously difficult to define. But if we can find a source that calls some of the stories in Beyond "science fantasy", then sure. Mike Christie (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read "noted for printing fantasy with a rational basis, such as stories about werewolves with a scientific explanation", and was looking for an article that we could link to explaining this. I have no desire to engage in OR here, but this does seem to fit within the broad definition as stated at science fantasy (but perhaps that article could be improved by some more authoritative, cited definitions?). I also noticed that Unknown is mentioned prominently in the science fantasy article. Anyway, I have no particular knowledge in this area, and I leave it to your judgment.--Pharos (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see your point. I guess it wouldn't hurt to link it but I'm not sure it would really help -- the science fantasy article isn't going to really clarify things for a reader of this. I guess at least a reader interested in the genre would find more to read that was interesting to them there, but the trouble with linking from a phrase like the one you mention is that it would be a bit of an Easter Egg link. I think I'll leave it unlinked for now, but if someone else thinks it's worth it I wouldn't argue with them. Mike Christie (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)