Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The All-Story Magazine/archive1

The All-Story Magazine

Featured article candidates/The All-Story Magazine/archive1

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an influential early pulp magazine. All-Story published many writers who were either already famous or went on to become famous, but it is best remembered for launching the career of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Under the Moons of Mars, better known by its book title of A Princess of Mars, was his first sale; he followed this up almost immediately with Tarzan of the Apes. All-Story wasn't a science fiction magazine, but it did publish a lot of sf and fantasy. At the end of the 1930s these stories (and those in Argosy, its sister magazine) were hard to find for fans of the genre, so two more magazines were launched with the sole purpose of reprinting these old classics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa

I intend to review this (but make no promises). As an initial comment, more images would be nice, assuming of course that there are appropriate ones to add. TompaDompa (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the covers are out of copyright, so I can add at least one more -- space is the main consideration, given that I don't want the images to interfere with the tables of issue data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two more images added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Put me down for a review, probably after Christmas. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was published monthly until March 1914, and then switched to a weekly schedule. Munsey merged it with The Cavalier, another of his pulp magazines, in 1914,: can we put a more specific date on the second one (we've changed levels of precision midstream)?
I made it May 1914. It was weekly at the time and I could give the actual issue date but I think that detail isn't necessary in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1920 it was merged with Munsey's Argosy; the combined magazine was retitled Argosy All-Story Weekly. The editor was Robert H. Davis;: this sounds as if Davis was the editor of Argosy All-Story Weekly.
Switched sentence order, which I hope takes care of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1912 All-Story printed Burroughs's Tarzan of the Apes, and more stories of Tarzan followed, along with two instalments of another of Burroughs' series: the MoS prefers the first style. See, later, Mary Roberts Rineharts' first story and Burroughs' Pellucidar series.
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
two magazines created to reprint old stories from the Munsey magazines.: anything to be done about the repetition here?
Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of changes of names and two merges in this story, and I'm intrigued that we've treated them differently. When the magazine merges with The Cavalier, we treat this as if All-Story is trundling on uninterrupted; meanwhile, when it merges with The Argosy, we treat it as if All-Story is no more. I'm not disputing this decision, but what's the thinking behind it?
This is surprisingly complex in general. The short answer is that I follow the treatment in the sources on the history of these magazines. One common way to look at it is to see which magazine's volume and issue numbering is continued -- that's the magazine that is considered to carry on from the merge. Another is to see what happens to the name -- it's common to carry the secondary name as a subtitle of some kind for a while, but if that disappears after a year or two (as in this case) it's a sign that the magazine was absorbed into the other title. There are some cases where it's really not clear what happened at all, such as Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories, which is why those two are covered in a single article. The reorganization of the Munsey magazines in 1929 is another example: before the change it was Argosy All-Story Weekly and Munsey's Magazine; afterwards it was Argosy and All-Story Combined with Munsey's, which is generally considered to be a completely new magazine, retitled All-Story Love Stories or some variation of that for most of its life. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first issue included the first instalment of five novels: first instalments, I think (cf. "the invaders cut off the heads of twelve villagers").
Fixed. Sounds like you're getting the hang of this pulp fiction lark. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
which science fiction historian Sam Moskowitz commented "caused some to class Serviss as the equal of Jules Verne".: not necessarily your problem, but it strikes me that Moskowitz is doing a classic bit of WP:WEASEL here. Can we substantiate this any further: does he give names, for instance?
There's no more in the source. I would guess he's talking about the readers' letters, but that's just a guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Italics versus quotation marks for titles: is the thinking that one-shot short stories are WP:MINORWORKS and so get quotes, while longer serialised novels are major works and so get italics?
Yes, exactly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the March 15, 1919 issue: this kind of structure needs a comma after the year (it's the same idea as MOS:GEOCOMMA). There are quite a few later in the "Bibliographic details" section.
Done, but some of them look hideous to my eyes. If leniency is available for any of these please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree: I looked this up in the Chicago Manual of Style (with which the MoS usually agrees) to make sure I wasn't leading you the wrong way, and I'm afraid that I wasn't: the double comma is correct. The CMoS suggested going DMY in contexts when lots of dates will be used: another approach is to try to get that second comma to line up where you would want to put a comma anyway (so phrases like "on March 15, 1919, All-Story introduced a new character."). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look and I don't see any immediate places where it would be easy to fix; I'm OK with just letting them be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All-Story also published poetry, including work by Djuna Barnes: can we give the reader any sense of why we've singled her out: I don't think she's famous enough that most people will get it automatically. Presumably it's not just that she's got a Wikipedia article?
That was in the article before I began working on it, and the source is sufficiently scholarly that I thought it was worth keeping. Plus it's nice to have examples of authors of each of the genres, including poetry, particularly as I don't cite many other women or any other modernists. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I agree with the inclusion: I was wondering whether we could gloss something like "later known as an important figure in modernist and lesbian literature" to give a sense of why we were drawing attention to her above all the other poets who wrote for the magazine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like your wording; added that and found a couple of sources to cite it to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston McCulley's Zorro series began: do I take it right that this magazine was the birthplace of Zorro? I think that would be worth mentioning in the lead. More generally, you could perhaps restructure the lead slightly to pick out the "big takeaways" that All-Story was an incubator for a couple of really famous characters that came out of the pulp era into the wider media world. Tarzan is mentioned there, but he gets a little lost among many other stories that are now mostly forgotten.
Added a sentence to the lead. I added "the vigilante" as he's not as well-known as Tarzan but perhaps that's unnecessary? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's always better to over-explain than under-explain, especially when we're trying to judge which bits of popular culture are well known (I'd suggest Zorro might have quite a strong generational skew, even before we start to factor in geography, language etc), though I wouldn't be too distraught if those words fell out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When magazine titles appear in chapter/website/book titles, they should be in italics.
Italics added for one website title. For the other two, the form is not that of the magazine title so I'm reluctant as it implies that was a title of a magazine at one point (Argosy, The, and All-Story (Cavalier) Weekly/Magazine). For the chapters in Tymn & Ashley, those are not italicized in the source; they're bolded chapter headings (and often don't match the magazine title, though in these cases they do). I can do this if you think it's necessary, and indeed I used to do this, but I now think these are better not italicized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of e.g. The Argosy and All-Story (Ashley 1985): is that not two titles? If so, should be The Argosy and All-Story. We've routinely used All-Story (italicised) as a shortened form of the title, just as you sometimes see e.g. Freewheelin', Fellowship or "Sultans", either in less formal writing or in contexts where the title is being used a lot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that one, and two others where the exact form of the magazine title is available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
popular science-fictional love stories: science-fiction is the usual adjective, I think. There's a possible inconsistency with having a hyphen here but not in science fiction historian Sam Moskowitz, but I think your choice is fine: one is more likely to be misconstrued than the other, since popular science is a thing. However, see later short science-fictional tales, where I think you've broken your own rule.
Changed them all to "science fiction". "Science-fictional" (with and without the hyphen) does have a long history; see here for a handful of citations, for example (the website is run by Jesse Sheidlower, who used to be the American editor of the OED). But I think it's fine to use the better-known form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand enlightened -- but still think you've made the right decision by changing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a historical romance of knights and damsels in distress: consider linking damsel in distress, which would help to avoid the misreading that Metcalf wanted stories about knights in distress.
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burroughs responded with The Outlaw of Torn at the end of November, which Metcalf rejected: might be worth adding an EFN to explain what eventually happened to it?
Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The next three Barsoom novels appeared in All-Story over the next four years: I think something has gone awry here: we haven't yet mentioned Barsoom in the body, though we have mentioned Under the Moons of Mars.
Oops, yes. Fixed. I'm tempted to put in more, since the series was enormously influential, but this isn't an article about Burroughs and as you say below there's plenty about him in the article already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gods of Mars was serialized from January to May, 1913: no comma here.
Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial rate of less than a cent per word that Burroughs received for his first sale began to increase: it might be worth flagging at the first instance, for readers who are slow with their math(s), that $400 for a manuscript of 70,000 words is just over half a cent per word.
The trouble is that I don't know what the final word count was. It's quite likely that the final version wasn't exactly 70,000 words, and I don't have a reference that says how much it was, so I don't want to imply a final word count by giving an exact rate. I can confidently say the rate was less than a cent per word given the numbers Porges quotes but I can't get much closer than that without guesswork. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did notice that we'd elided whether Burroughs actually met the word count specified. Probably can't be too precise here without OR, so will have to leave this one where it is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burroughs gets the overwhelming majority of the airtime in the section on Contents and Reception. That clearly isn't a reflection of how much of the magazine his work occupied, but is it an accurate reflection of what the scholarship on All-Story looks like? I note that a lot of it is cited to Porges, which is a work about Burroughs rather than about the magazine.
There's no question that Burroughs is the most important author to have been published in the magazine, but it's also true that the article simply spends more time on him because of the availability of the details in Porges. The other sources generally list a few names and a few stories, but don't go into nearly that much detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Victor Rousseau" should link to Victor Rousseau Emanuel: Victor Rousseau was a Belgian sculptor.
Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cover illustrations did not at first have any relationship to the stories in the magazine: you may wish to show this by putting an early one and a late one side by side?
Done, and thanks for fixing the sequence -- I ran out of time to make that change last night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Popular brought back Fantastic Novels for another 20 issues between 1948 and 1951: missing a period at the end. Popular demand -- or do we mean Popular magazine? While looking for an answer, I noticed that the word "popular" is used frequently here: you may wish to vary it a little.
This was opaque; I was referring to Popular Publications, a pulp magazine publisher. Now clearer, I hope. I've substituted one of the usages of "popular"; let me know if more need to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the magazine had reached 200,000 circulation: is this idiomatic? I'd say "a circulation of 200,000", but will defer if the professionals do otherwise.
Changed; you're right that that was a clumsy way to say it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2006, a copy of the October 1912 issue of All-Story, featuring the first appearance of the character Tarzan in any medium, sold for $59,750: inflate?
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1 and Note 2 are identical: clever use of the |name= parameter could avoid this.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All replied to now; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all sorted and another worthy addition to the pantheon of pulp-fiction FAs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

" founded in 1905 and published Frank Munsey" - there's a word missing in there
"whose first sale was Under the Moons of Mars" - shouldn't the story title be in either italics or quote marks (not sure which is correct for a story title but I am pretty sure it should be one of them)....?
""The Conquest of the Moon Pool", a sequel to latter story," - missing "the"
"followed in 1919, and were very popular" - the subject of the sentence is just a single story, so the verb should be singular
Minor possibly, but in the lead you have Frank Munsey and Robert Davis whereas in the bosy you have Frank A. Munsey and Bob Davis
That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All dealt with. It's amazing how one can't see missing words in one's own writing. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Would a pulp magazine link in the lead's first sentence be helpful? It is linked in the article, but I do not think it is linked in the lead, unless I am overlooking something of course.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it may be helpful to qualify in the lead that Thomas Newell Metcalf worked as a managing editor, as I was a bit uncertain on my first read-through on why Metcalf and Robert H. Davis are presented as editors for the magazine, but presented in two different parts rather than together. By the way, I do appreciate the note in the article that defines the role of a managing editor to those unfamiliar with this type of industry.
Done, though maybe I should just remove the mention of Metcalf -- he doesn't have his own article. He's important mainly because of the interactions with Burroughs, but I don't know if that requires him to be in the lead. I'll think about that some more and might cut him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I will leave that decision up to you as I believe that you would know best about it. I can understand the argument for removing him as it avoid having to define the managing editor role in the lead, but I am not familiar enough with Metcalf or this type of article in general to say either way confidently enough. That being said, I could understand keeping him in the lead or keeping him in the article and removing him from the lead for the reasons you have said above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, (and more stories of Tarzan followed), it may be useful to link to the Tarzan (book series) article. I was also wondering if this part, (set on Mars), would benefit from a link to the Mars in fiction article, but I am admittedly less certain about that or if it would be too forced or ambiguous in the prose.
Both links added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about the selection of File:All story weekly 19200410.jpg for its particular spot in the article? It is a striking cover that is visually interesting, but I was wondering why it was paired with the paragraph about Burroughs. Why not use File:Under the Moons of Mars.jpg instead, which while less visually interesting, is more directly related to the Burroughs paragraph and provides readers with a look inside the magazine and not just at the cover? This is more of a suggestion than anything, but I did question the image usage and placement on my first read-through of the article.
I decided not to pick a Burroughs cover at that point because the Tarzan one is at the top of the article, so I picked one that illustrated a story by one of the other named authors -- Max Brand. I could swap the two images, but Tarzan is so universally known that it seemed the natural image to put at the top. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I didn't answer your question about the internal image. I like that image, but I don't think I have room to include it -- I'm afraid someone with a wide screen would see sandwiching issues if I add another one. I don't think it's a good idea to have only Burroughs-related images -- he was important, but the magazine was important for other reasons too, and I don't want to give the impression that Burroughs is the only reason the magazine is remembered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me, and I honestly did not consider that. I agree that it is best to not over-emphasize Burroughs in this article. I did not think about the lead image when making this suggestion. I agree that the Tarzan image is best kept at the top because of its popularity. And it is always best to keep in mind how readers will access the article, and Wikipedia in general, through different devices and platforms so I agree with the sandwiching concerns. With all of that in mind, I agree that the current image makes more sense in this context. As I said above, I really like the image, and it does show more of the art style and the variety of stories associated with the magazine, which is always a plus in my opinion. It was likely a case of me just over-thinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Tarzan image is a good choice. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any other notable auctions related to the magazine other than the one for Tarzan's first appearance?
Not that I'm aware of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling that was the case, but thank you for clarifying it for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this review is helpful. I always find it a joy to read about this kind of stuff as it always reminds me of my brother as he loves more pulpy stories. Also, reminds me that I should read more short stories in general. I did not have that much to comment on to be honest, but after everything has been addressed, I will read through everything again to just make sure I do as thorough a job as possible as a reviewer. I hope you are having a great end of your year. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hope you're having a good holiday season. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that I am able to help with this review. I could not find anything further to bring up here, and I have added my responses above. I agree with your comments, and I will leave it up to you on how to best handle Metcalf's inclusion in the lead as I trust your opinion on that. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a great holiday season as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hi Mike Christie, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain because of their age. The images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The source links of the last two were dead but I was able to fix them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and for fixing those links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of the same age now added; it has alt text and I just fixed the source link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

What makes https://web.archive.org/web/20230128191052/http://www.philsp.com/data/data018.html#ALLSTORYMAGAZINE1905 and https://comics.ha.com/heritage-auctions-newsletter/rare-pulp-brings-record-price-at-heritage-.s?inFrame=yes&id=1823&date reliable sources? Mike Ashley and Michael Ashley seem to be the same person, so perhaps they should be given the same name. Greenwood Press is linked on its second mention. None of the sources seem questionable, checked the reviews of some and they seemed fine too. I assume that we are going by "OCLC, if that's not available ISBN" as the source formatting rule? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philsp.com is maintained by bibliographer Phil Stephensen-Payne; per this he is treated as reliable by The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.
The ha.com page is used only to support information about Heritage Auctions in their specialist field, that of auction prices for collectibles.
For Ashley I've used the form of the name on the books themselves, which has changed over the years.
Have now added publisher links in all source listings where there's an article to link to.
ISBN I think you meant to say the reverse? Which would be correct: ISBN unless it's too early, in which case use OCLC.

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, got the numbers of OCLC and ISBN mentally confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]