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 by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 23 October 2010 [1].

Galaxy Science Fiction[edit]

Galaxy Science Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy was one of the most influential science fiction magazines ever published, but it came into being almost accidentally, because of the failure of an Italian company to launch a romance magazine in the US at the end of the 1940s. It was edited for ten years by an H.L. Gold, an agoraphobe who never went to the office, and for another eight years by Frederik Pohl; it fell into decline in the 1970s and disappeared in 1980, with a brief revival fourteen years later. A couple of FAs on similar topics, if you'd like to compare, are Amazing Stories and If. Mike Christie (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Not a full review yet, but there is one problems that I can see straight away. Ref 1 refers to "Clute & Nicholls, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", as do numerous other refs. In 53, however, it has become Encyclopedia of SF, and the authors (or editors?) have become "Nicholls and Clute". This format also occurs in 54. The original format returns for 63 and 74, but in 98 we have a new arrangement, "Nicholls & Clute", followed by "Clute and Nicholls" in 99. Can you standardise these into one format? I suggest you include the date 1993, to help avoid confusion with two other works that have similar names. I'll complete a proper sources review later. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; I also did some other regularization that I spotted; please let me know if there are any other inconsistencies. Mike Christie (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source/citations review. It's a tedious job and I'm glad you and Ealdgyth are so thorough. Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All sources issues fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that cuts it for me. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a very impressive article which I would hope to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An impressive piece of research. It could use a bit of copyediting, which I'm happy to provide over the next few days. One query on the lede:

This concluding sentence makes two points—one general, then one specific. There is obviously some overlap between them, but it is hardly evident how much. If Galaxy's revolutionary effect is largely a matter of it inspiring the New Wave, then the sentence is redundant and needs to be tightened. If it had an additional revolutionary effect, that needs to be articulated in summary fashion.—DCGeist (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer of the copyedit; always appreciated. The sentence you quote from the lead is a summary of two points made in the influence section; you can see there that it's a combination of points made by Ashley and Kyle. I selected them as clear statements, fairly representative, and having some substantive content beyond praise. I didn't intend for the two points to be connected in any way, other than as statements about Galaxy's influence -- the "and" was meant to avoid a logical implication there. Would it suffice to add the attributions to Ashley and Kyle? E.g. "Magazine historian Mike Ashley has suggested that Galaxy was single-handedly responsible for revolutionizing the field, and sf historian David Kyle has asserted it was primarily Galaxy's influence that led to the New Wave, the most important sf movement of the 1960s." That sounds a bit clunky, I think -- perhaps separate sentences would be better. Please feel free to pull in other material from the influences section if you think it would help. Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of attributions, which aren't necessary in the lede. It's the question of how did Galaxy "revolutionize" the field. Without something a little more specific, it reads like puffery. Yes I do think it needs to be broken into two sentences. The content of the second sentence—concerning the seminal effect on the New Wave—seems fairly straightforward; the first, though, not so much yet. As it happens, before I posted my earlier comment, I looked at the Influence on the field section to see if I could readily resolve my question and I found I couldn't. Here's the issue:
In Influence we find, "Ashley regards Galaxy's success as the main reason for the subsequent boom in science fiction magazines." Preceding Influence, we've been given the details: "From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950. Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; and according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954." However, "By the late 1950s, the science fiction magazine boom was over, and the relatively low-circulation of the magazines did not endear them to distributors." So: Galaxy's swift success was the primary motivation for a temporary (and secondary), seven- or eight-year boom in the sf magazine market. That's important to be sure, but it hardly strikes me as an effect warranting the label "revolutionized" in the lede. It may or not be worth mentioning the effect on this mid-1950s boom in the lede—that's up to you—but I would hesitate to call it revolutionary. However, it is the sentence in Influence relating to that mid-1950s magazine boom where Ashley's "revolutionized" quote appears...
The following sentences of Influence describe an effect that is much more plausibly "revolutionary"—a major impact on the aesthetics of the sf field: "Galaxy provided a market for social science fiction stories that might not have been accepted [elsewhere]"; it was "where 'the stunning new kinds of science fiction ... flowered, and changed everything in science fiction'"; "'After Galaxy it was impossible to go on being naive'"; with its innovative aesthetic, "Galaxy quickly overtook Astounding as the leader of the field". In sum, it really does seem like Galaxy revolutionized the field—in this way. That appears to be what needs to be stated in the lede's third graf (with variation sufficiently elegant that it doesn't simply repeat the related points made in the first graf).—DCGeist (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I've read through your points, the lead, and the influence paragraph, and I agree that the selection from that paragraph needs to be improved, for the reasons you give. Unfortunately I will barely be at the computer today; I may not be able to get to this until (possibly) late tonight, or (more likely) some time on Friday night or Saturday morning. If you would like to try a revision, that would be great; otherwise I'll work on it when I am back at the computer. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. You take a crack at it when you can, and then I'll weigh in.

OK, I've had a go at it; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. And the result shows why I wanted you to take the lead on it: I could have a done a competent revision, but you've done something whose character well reflects the article as a whole.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bouncing around the piece, copyediting, and enjoying what I both read and see. Are the charts that show Galaxy's publication dates, volume and issue numbers, and (via color code) editors adapted from similar charts in Tymm & Ashley or elsewhere, or are they of your own design? If the latter, you are to be complimented (as well as commended for your effort, in any event). The charts convey a great deal of information very efficiently, they are clear and easy to understand, and they are beautiful—models of how to present information visually.

Thank you very much. I'm a fan of Edward Tufte, and have three of his books on information presentation, so I'm delighted to hear that I did well. They are my own design; the result of years of collecting sf magazines and trying to figure out easy ways to store the bibliographic data. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised to learn you're a Tufte fan. I believe he'd be proud. Lovely work.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional queries so far:

Are these three figures (8/20/22 more) for the United States, or the world, or do your sources not make that clear, or do they make it clear in one or two cases but not the other(s)? Based on your response, I'll propose an edit.

They refer to US magazines only. I have to confess these numbers worry me a little. Ashley's appendix to volume 3 of his first set of sf histories (which I've added as a reference) is very badly organized. Because Amazing started in April 1926, his years run April to March, so that his tabulation for the period from 1946 to 1955 has columns heading "1946/7" and so on. It's extremely difficult to figure out how many magazines there really were in a given year. There are eight US magazines he shows as having produced at least one issue in the column titled "1946/7"; it would take me a good half hour if you asked me to figure out whether there were really exactly eight active at any given time, or if the minimum occurred in 1946 or early 1947. Then the 1949/50 column has 17 magazines listed, and the 1950/1 column has 25, so my guess is that when I wrote that line (which goes back at least to the article on Imagination, which was almost three years ago) I did the legwork to establish that 20 was the right number. I can't prove it now without a lot of work, though. Similarly, it's clear from visually scanning the table Ashley gives that the 1953/4 column represents a high point, but I would hate to have to prove those numbers are exactly right, though in this case I seem to recall that I went through the table and counted all magazines that had their first issue in that column or before, but after the 1950 column. Any thoughts on the best way to deal with that? I think the numbers do give a clear indication of sudden growth in the field, more so than just saying "explosive growth" or something similar. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list below shows that Pohl's tenure officially began with the Dec. '61 issue; the chart above shows that it officially began with the Oct. '61 issue. Please correct whichever is in error. (P.S. I see now that the text of Publication history—1960s also says December.)—DCGeist (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; the chart was in error. I checked the original magazine to be sure. I've uploaded a new version of the chart. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another query:

Another:

That's certainly correct as far as it goes, but an examination of the data presented in your annual circulation chart reveals something very interesting. There was a healthy circulation increase (about 18%) during Baen's first full year as editor, circulation year 1975; a modest dip (about 6%) in 1976; and then a massive jump, over 50%, in 1977. Is there any information that could explain what happened that year, or any comment available on it?—DCGeist (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a real magazine-geek question (i.e. I find it interesting but I wasn't sure anyone else would so I left the gory details out of the article). The circulation figures published refer to a 12 month period ending usually about six months before the cover date. They give total paid circulation for the average of all issues in that 12 month period, and they also give the circulation of the single issue closest to the filing date. Here's the data for those four years:
  • Feb 75 statement: filed 1 Oct 74. Single issue 48,726; avg 47,789. (73-74 data)
  • Feb 76 statement: filed 1 Oct 75. Single issue 46,279; avg 56,361. (74-75 data)
  • Apr 77 statement: filed 1 Oct 76. Single issue 63,200; avg 52,831. (75-76 data)
  • Jan 78 statement: filed 1 Oct 77. Single issue 87,032; avg 81,035. (76-77 data)
If the filing date was 1 Oct, the most recent issue for which circulation could have been obtained was probably the July issue. So this is really an August to July year. Baen became editor in June 1974, but his story selections are unlikely to have started to show up till about the December issue. So the 47,789 is the year before him; the next year is the first one he could have had an impact on, though for about the first half of that year (August to December 1974) the stories were selected by his predecessor. If I had to interpret these numbers, I'd say that he appears to have had trouble really impressing the readership for the first year or so, but then readership took off no later than the summer of 1976 and grew very fast after that.
Having said all that, the short answer to your question is that there is no more detailed commentary available on this. I have to say that the average is probably the number to look at, and that the difference between 56,361 and 52, 831 might just be statistical noise; the big jump is to 81,035. I think, looked at that way, that that's exactly what Ashley is commenting on here -- the big jump to 81,035. He only gives the 47,789 number because it's the number preceding Baen's involvement; the impressive transition is from 52,831 to 81,035.
Does that answer your question? Mike Christie (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought concerning the discussion you had about the artwork section with hamiltonstone:

Another art-related observation:

I'll respond further on this tomorrow or Saturday, but a quick comment: the title typeface was designed by Frank Conley -- it's not mentioned in the main text (which is probably why you missed it) but is covered by note 1. More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had not thoroughly perused the notes yet, so I missed it. And my point search word in Google Booking was "typeface" so I missed the ref, which explains Conley "lettered logos". Indeed.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that Ashley's comment (which I'd missed) implies that Galaxy had more illustrations than the competition, but I have to say I'd be nervous about drawing that conclusion in the article based on that source. Unless I phrase it more explicitly than Ashley does, it doesn't seem worth mentioning; and such a rephrasing seems to me to be stretching what the source says. One other point: Ashley gives, in Transformations, a table showing price, page count, wordage and words per 1 cent for a dozen sf magazines in 1959. This is in the context of discussing Galaxy's change to bimonthly that year, and the changes in page count and price; Ashley shows that the changes decreased the wordage readers got for each cent they paid. In other words, the change to 192 pages that you mention is really part of Guinn's restructuring for increased profitability. It's covered in the article, at the end of the "Origins and 1950s" section, but I didn't go into details and give the comparative figures, as Ashley does -- even a magazine geek has to draw the line somewhere. The bibliographic section does give a quick summary of the page count changes in the "Other bibliographic details" section. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited your fine revision of the lede's third graf. This, in the lede's second graf, also needs a rewrite:

As noted above, there was a substantial jump in circulation under Baen, Jakobsson's immediate successor. Circulation increases don't necessarily correspond with quality improvements, but we do find this in the main text: "Jakobsson's successor, James Baen, was able to publish some high-quality fiction" and "Baen raised the level of the magazine substantially, and critic Mike Ashley refers to his editorship as Galaxy's 'Indian summer.'"—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've modified the lead to address this; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you've addressed the above matters as best as possible given the sources. I still have yet to work my way through the main body of Contents and reception, which I'll be able to do late Sunday or Monday.

One query I forgot to raise:

This is in a discussion of the magazine's launch, so "improved" compared to what? The norm for other sf magazines? The norm for World Editions? For genre magazines in general?—DCGeist (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold wanted the magazine to capture the Saturday Evening Post readers; and he wanted it to look sophisticated because he wanted it to be sophisticated. One thing he worked hard to get was Kromekote paper for the covers, a glossy paper that allowed much better reproduction; another was the production process, mentioned in the Contents and reception section, which enabled more complex page layouts. These things would have distinguished Galaxy from its competition in the sf field, but Gold didn't want to just be different from Astounding; he wanted to look as much as possible like a slick. So I'd say "the norm for other sf magazines" is most of it, but perhaps the comparison is not the best way to go. How about "Gold made efforts to implement high-quality printing techniques"? Mike Christie (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I've made an edit on that basis.—DCGeist (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs a thoughtful rewrite:

"Real" quality as opposed to what? How have we determined that from April 1951 there was at least one such story in each issue, but that the "highly regarded" stories by "well-known authors" in the first six issues...what? Somehow didn't quite qualify as "real" quality? Or, there wasn't one in every single one of the first six issues...but after that there was one in every single issue? Perhaps the point you're getting at is that from the beginning, the magazine contained stories by well-known authors, a few of which became highly regarded. Then, according to X, beginning with the April 1951 issue, there was a marked leap in overall quality, with almost every issue including a story that would become widely acclaimed.—DCGeist (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to answer this is to quote the source I was using here. Tymn and Ashley say that Gold "made it clear that his early numbers were to be considered experimental and subject to reader approval", and later "Volume 2 (April - September 1951) began to reflect the impact of reader responses to Gold's appeals ... By this time the quality of the fiction throughout each issue had been improved, achieving the consistency associated with a leading publication but rarely achieved in the genre. There were few of the filler-calibre stories by big names that appeared in the earlier numbers ... It was rare that a number of Galaxy did not print a work with subsequent staying power." These quotes are pulled from a page's worth of discussion, in the midst of which Tymn & Ashley singles out Leiber's "Coming Attraction" (Nov 50) and "The Fireman" (Feb 51) as worthy of notice. They also list the names of the early contributors: Asimov, Simak, MacLean, Matheson, Sturgeon, Leiber, Bradbury; they don't say these are listed because they're well-known -- I assume they feel it's obvious. The sentence you quote was my attempt to summarize that in a single line -- I used "a few" rather than "two" because they don't actually say that "The Fireman" and "Coming Attraction" are the only top-notch stories. Sorry, long answer to a short question again -- I hope that's useful. Mike Christie (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did an edit based on the sourced quotation you provided here (the edit involved moving some material down from the first paragraph of the sub-section to avoid repetition and make the relevant passage more specific). But I have to tell you, looking at exactly when things were published and scanning the contents of these early issues in ISFDB, it strikes me that—average quality (i.e., "consistency") aside—more stories with a lasting reputation were published in volume 1 than volume 2. Take a look for yourself—if you agree, the language should probably be tweaked a bit further (while not violating the substance of the cited sources, of course).
My perception could be wrong. As it stands, though, we currently have four "high quality" examples from vol. 1 and just one from vol. 2 (and even that example, Puppet Masters is hardly ideal—only one of its three parts appeared in vol. 2, in September 1951, the volume's last issue). If the existing language is going to be retained, we should have a couple more examples for vol. 2, stories whose "subsequent staying power" can be cited to your current sources or ones to be added.—DCGeist (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky. Looking through the second volume, I would add at least "Marching Morons", "Beyond Bedlam" and "Cabin Boy" to the list of memorable stories; I added the first to the article because Tymn and Ashley mention it. Scanning the first volume only gave me "To Serve Man", which is good but kind of a gimmick story, though it is fondly remembered. So I think the perception that the second volume is better is justified. However, the survey pieces I am using as sources don't cite these as examples, and though I could probably find positive reviews of those stories elsewhere I hesitate to use them -- to be confident I wasn't misrepresenting I'd have to check for reviews of all the stories and that would be verging on original research. Do you feel that adding "Marching Morons" provides enough weight to the argument that it can stay? Mike Christie (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The resulting ratio of 3-2 was obviously much better than 4-1, but making it 3-all, I added Beyond Bedlam, whose importance was easy to verify and source. And it adds a new author—building the web! (By the way, in an attempt to establish a consistent style quote mark vs. italic style, I applied italics for any work of fiction of "novella" length or longer—Beyond Bedlam and The Dragon Masters being the two instances of novellas mentioned in the article, I believe.)—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. WP:MOSTITLE says books should be in italics and short stories in quotes; I think that leaves novellas in the grey area. Mike Christie (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the wikitable is certainly readable, I think the graphic looked much better and presents the information in a manner that is more likely to attract and reward close study. It's also dumbfounding that anyone would even think to oppose promotion of an article to FA status over such a matter, which, among other things, is outside the criteria.—DCGeist (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAs follow the manual of style: WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images. Jujutacular talk 04:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is only borderline relative to that clause of the guideline: One could well regard the grid as explicating a variation whose importance is as much visual as textual. I would, in fact, argue that the effect of the visual variation is more to the point here than is the substance of the textual variation. Even granting, hypothetically, the opposing perspective, I continue to find it very, very surprising that anyone would regard this element of the MOS as so essential that they would feel compelled to oppose promotion of an article to FA status over it and it alone.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, has there been an image review yet? (sorry if I missed it). Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. Mike Christie (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query:

You provide the number of parts and the precise dates for this one serialization, Preferred Risk, but for no others. Unless there is a particularly compelling reason to set this one apart—which would need to be articulated in the text—this information should be provided in every serialization case, or none.—DCGeist (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it; I think it's excessive detail, and the isfdb index linked in the footnotes allows readers to go find this sort of information if they are interested. Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query:

I would definitely add the Davidson. And, my friend, I must direct your attention to Leiber's Hugo-winning The Big Time (Galaxy: March and April 1958). I would definitely add that as well. You might also consider adding Hugo nominee Immortality, Inc./Time Killer by Sheckley (Galaxy: October, November, and December 1958 and February 1959) ((which happened to lose out, in my opinion, to one of the ten, maybe the five, greatest science fiction novels ever)).—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the two winners; I didn't add the Sheckley -- particularly for the 1950s I think it would be misleading to talk about nominees, since they weren't recorded till 1959. (And I agree with you that Case of Conscience is up near the top of the list.) Mike Christie (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist, I think I've responded to all your comments now, but there are a lot (thank you!) and I might have missed some. Let me know if anything else needs a response. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query:

  • No pertinent Hugo in 1954 (for publication year 1953)
  • Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine, 1955–57 (for publication years 1954–56): all Astounding
  • Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine, 1958–59 (for publication years 1957–58): both F&SF

Query:

Okay, it looks like there was reason to worry about this hard-to-source figure, or rather its presentation, which appears to be inadvertently misleading insofar as it suggests that 1954 was a high-water mark for the field. In researching the issue above, I found in Ashley's Transformations: "The blight settled over the comic-book field during 1954 and 1955 in the wake of the Wertham report. The effect toppled over into the pulp field" (p. 72); "The end of 1955 saw the American sf magazine market at its lowest ebb since the end of the Second World War. There were only eleven magazines that had survived the blight..." (p. 73). I don't know if this requires a drastic change, but it definitely calls for a shift in emphasis.—DCGeist (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing the numbers if the sourcing is a concern, but I don't think the quote you give is actually in contradiction. If 1954 is the year in which a negative effect begins, then the peak should be some time in 1954 -- perhaps early in the year, of course. I think the early 1950s is definitely a boom: the Nicholls article on "SF Magazines" gives a partial list of magazines launched each year from 1950 through 1957, with the following totals:
  • 1950 - 6
  • 1951 - 2
  • 1952 - 5
  • 1953 - 6
  • 1954 - 1
  • 1955 - 1
  • 1956 - 3
  • 1957 - 3
This doesn't include magazines already mentioned in the article, which means Galaxy should be added; that adds one to the 1950 total. This is a partial list even then (which is why it doesn't add to 22), but I think is useful, and I don't think this is in conflict with the quote you give from Transformations. Mike Christie (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pondering... Back to you in a few hours on this.—DCGeist (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a clause to the end of the Publication history lede that takes care of it as far as I'm concerned. See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest:

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A query re images: I originally intended to do the image review but then found it too complicated. My main query is this: while the magazine's copyright in the cover (File:Galaxy1.jpg) of its first issue may have lapsed, I'm not sure that is the case for the artwork that is reproduced on that cover - i thought the copyright in that remained with the artist and remained valid until 70 years after their death. So I had a doubt about whether it could truly be free, and was not sure how to address this question. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on this, but a data point might be useful: [2] is the place I go to look for copyright renewals. Searching for Emshwiller brings up 30 results, one of which is Ed Emshwiller renewing the illustration on the cover of a book. So whether the copyright is in the artist's name, or belongs to the publisher, it should have been renewed under one name or the other. I can't find evidence of a renewal under either name. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sufficient expert on copyright to answer this. I also assume the 1st issue cover art copyright needed to be renewed and was not. The image that shows multiple covers needs to be reviewed by an image expert, though I repeat that I am satisfied it meets the Fair Use requirements. I assume the original issue back cover is free since the copyright was not renewed, and the remaining images (grids and graphs) were all user generated and are free. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: The article includes seven image files. Four are public domain charts created by the nominator that graphically represent publicly available and noncopyrightable information. The other three files are:

  • License: PD-US-NOT RENEWED. Well-evidenced. It is clear that copyright registration of this issue of the magazine as a whole was not renewed, as then necessary to maintain copyright status, in its 28th year. There is also a question about the status of the artwork by David Stone that constitutes much of the substance of the image. Given the sourced description in the article that "in the 1950s and 1960s, Galaxy retained the original artwork sent in by its artists," it is virtually certain that the magazine contracted for art on a work-for-here rather than licensed basis and that copyright to the art thus resided with the publisher and was covered by the copyright registration (and the renewal or non-renewal thereof) of the magazine as a whole. Even if that was for some reason not the case in this particular instance, a search of U.S. Copyright Office records reveals no evidence that Stone renewed copyright registration, if any, on the work in its 28th year.
  • Quality: Professional.
  • License: PD-US-NOT RENEWED. Well-evidenced. Again, it is clear that copyright registration of this issue of the magazine as a whole was not renewed, as then necessary to maintain copyright status, in its 28th year. The nature of the anonymously written editorial text, headlined "You'll Never See It in Galaxy", makes it almost certain that it was provided to the magazine by its staff or a freelancer on a work-for-hire basis. Even if that was for some reason not the case in this particular instance, a search of U.S. Copyright Office records reveals no evidence that anyone renewed copyright registration, if any, on a text titled "You'll Never See It in Galaxy".
  • Quality: Professional.
  • Usage: Good—shows the substantial changes in the magazine's cover design, supporting and explicating the well-sourced discussion thereof. As an additional benefit to the reader, show examples of the magazine's artwork from across its entire history, again supporting the sourced discussion of that topic.
  • Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A fine piece of research that captures the peculiar magic of those old science-fiction digests.—DCGeist (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More