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 05:03, 27 May 2011 [1].

---

Nebula Science Fiction[edit]

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

• Featured article candidates/Nebula Science Fiction/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nebula was the first Scottish science fiction magazine, and one of the best-loved features of the 1950s British science fiction scene. Despite being launched by a teenager it established itself as a significant market, and published the first sales of several well known writers including Robert Silverberg and Brian Aldiss. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Colon or no colon preceding "Part 4"? (Also, is "part" vs "volume" from the original source?)
• Illustrated Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia?
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate "Volume" in Footnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I've left "Vol." in the references for Ashley because the book has it that way on the title page. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It says "21 shillings per word", "2d per word", "price was 2/-", "priced at 2/6". It's the same accessibility problem as in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Science_Fantasy_(magazine)/archive1 and the same solution will work i.e. provide each instance with a conversion into current UK money values. I suggest: '21 shillings (£1.05) per word', '2d (0.8p) per word', 'price was 2/- (10p)', 'priced at 2/6 (12.5p)'

  Done. I should have remembered to do this; I am about to work on another UK sf magazine and will make sure I get this right before I bring it to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, it mentions "21 shillings per word" and goes on to say that is "the equivalent of half a cent per word". The conversion is wrong. Please confirm that the astonishingly high value of 21 shillings per word is correct. If it has a current UK money value, I don't see any need to convert into US values.

  It was a mistake on my part; the rate is actually 21 shillings per thousand words. I've corrected it. If my math is correct, the conversion would require the dollar/sterling exchange rate to have been $5 to £1 at that time; I don't know what it actually was. The comparison is made in the source (which gives the half cent figure); the reason it's relevant is that the American magazines were regarded as the main market for sf and Hamilton's ability (or lack of it) to pay rates that were competitive with the US market is part of the story. Hence I'd like to leave it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It says "in the fifties". I suggest that year expressions include the century whether in digit or word form.

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It has a table shown as an image. The contrast is poor and the image truncates the section separation line. We discussed this elsewhere and I didn't pay enough attention. Can somebody explain to me again what happens if text is presented as text?

  This has been discussed several times; the most recent was at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Science_Fantasy_(magazine)/archive1. I created a sandbox to try out the text version: User:Mike_Christie/Sandbox4. I feel there are still some significant flaws with the text version that I don't see how to fix. There's a fairly detailed list at the Science Fantasy archive of the goals for a table or image -- if we can resolve those points I have no problem with a text table. However, I also think that the accessibility issue is addressed because the information in the image is also available in the text -- the goal of the image is precisely as a visual aid for quick comprehension; this is not a goal that can be achieved for the visually impaired reader, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  However, the table-info is discussed primarily in a different section of the text. The goal appears to be a good one: a visual overview of the pattern of publication. That would be more appropriate in the "Publishing history" section, which is discussion about the irregular pattern, etc. than in the "Bibliographic details, which is discussion about the page-size and price. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've moved it -- see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks fine thanks! DMacks (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightmouse (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images - sidestepping the discussion above about the table, image copyrights are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates. The text-as-image issue is cropping up in multiple articles and there must be a simple solution. I'm not an expert but village pump (technical) seems to me to be the place to ask. I'd be happy to ask there on your behalf but I think you are probably better able to express the problem. Shall I leave it to you? Lightmouse (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you really feel I should, I will post there, but to be honest my only concern is accessibility, and I think that moving the information to the body of the text addresses that sufficiently. I'll be happy to switch to text if it looks just as good, but I think with the info in the body the image is just a visual aid, so I don't really see a problem with leaving it as it is. If you don't mind I'll let it lie. If someone else solves the problem, I'm sure I'll hear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I won't oppose progress of this article to FA just on the basis of the image problem, but I'll ask at the Village pump and hope that somebody can find a solution. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mike, Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Presenting_a_text_table_as_an_image_or_as_text. I hope we'll get a helpful response. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I will watchlist that page and hope someone comes along with a solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support"""Comments Close to support, just a couple of niggles.

• Lead:
  • "Because Hamilton could only print Nebula when the equipment would otherwise have been idle, the schedule was initially quite erratic." Wordy. Try "Because Hamilton could only print Nebula when the equipment was idle, the schedule was initially quite erratic."

    Um, yeah, it's wordy, but the pedant in me protests -- it wasn't actually idle, because Hamilton was using it. Are you sure the reduction in wordiness is worth the loss of precision? I guess people will read your version correctly, but it bugs me to make it inaccurate in that way. How about "could only print Nebula during gaps in the printing schedule" instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a good compromise. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As it turns out, I couldn't use that phrase because "schedule" was in the earlier part of the sentence, but I found another way to do this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No article on Hamilton?

    I thought about it but there doesn't seem to be anything written about him specifically -- he's only well-known because of the magazine. I don't think he's notable in himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Publishing:
  • "...better than the contemporary British sf magazine Authentic Science Fiction..." do we really need the qualifier "sf" here?

    No, good point. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...paying as much as 2d (0.8p) per word .." you gave the equivalent in US cents for an earlier figure - can we do so here?

    The US equivalent was given in the source; I don't know what the exchange rate was at the time so I can't be sure the source is right, but it seems to work out at about $5 to the pound. If that's right then 2d is about 4 cents per word, which is consistent with the comment "as much as the best markets in the U.S." Since I don't have an independent indication of the rate of exchange I didn't add it. I'll see if I can find a source for that and if I can I'll put it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I just found this, which seems to be a reliable source and says that the exchange rate was about $2.80. If you agree that that's an RS, I think that warrants a footnote to the sourced half cent conversion, and then I can supply actual conversions. It's awkward because the source is very explicit that this was a competitive rate but it appears it was not that high a rate; I'll have to think about how to deal with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've used MW in my horse articles, and it should be reasonably accurate. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This was higher than the best U.K. markets, such as New Worlds, and as much as the best markets in the U.S. were paying at the time; as a result, Nebula was a very attractive market." too many markets!! Can we change some out?

    I cut the third one as redundant; what it says is repeated in the next sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "U.S." or "US"? I prefer the former, but I suspect that the latter is the usual in Brit English.

    I don't have a strong opinion so I switched; not sure if it's an engvar issue but I suppose it might be. My BrEng is somewhat corrupted after twenty years over here in the ex-colonies; not sure I can be trusted on this one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ONly the Brits could see us as still "ex-colonies" (gaze up) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Contents:
  • "science fiction fandom" Linky?

    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...and in 1953 bought the first story of several writers who later became very well-known..." shouldn't this be "bought the first stories"?

    Not sure. I think I'd like to hear from a grammar maven on this one. I would say "the first person on each team to cross the line", because "the first people" could refer to more than one of the people on a given team. I don't think "the first stories" is similarly ambiguous though. I will ping Malleus on this. I also just noticed that in the intro to this FAC I said "first sales", so I am not being entirely consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Malleus agreed with you that it needs to be changed. I've recast the sentence so I could use "each", which I think now allows me to keep "story" singular. Let me know if you think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That works. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I usually see "SF" not "sf", but really - this is an encyclopedia and we should spell it out to be more formal.

    I use "sf" rather than "SF" partly because that's what the Nicholls/Clute encyclopedia uses; that's the basic reference in the field; it's quite common to see it lower case. I don't particularly mind changing it to SF if there's a consensus to do so but I think the lower case version is less obtrusive visually. It is almost universal in the reference works to use an abbreviation; either "sf", "SF", or occasionally something odder like "stf". I think it's justifiable because one often finds sentences in which "science fiction" would naturally occur two or three times; abbreviating one or two of those instances makes for a much smoother flow. Here's a sentence from the Planet Stories article, for example: "Fiction House's first title with sf interest was Jungle Stories, which was launched in early 1939; it was not primarily a science fiction magazine, but often featured storylines with marginally science fictional themes." I think making that first "sf" into "science fiction" would sound very clunky. Having said that, this particular article doesn't have any sentences that would sound terrible if I changed it, so I am OK with changing it if you feel it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which novel by Heinlein didn't get serialized?

    I'm away from my refs at the moment; I don't think the refs say but I hope I can tell by looking at the issues themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears Hamilton did not announce this in the magazine -- the "Next issue" notes for the last two issues don't mention it. I've ordered a copy of Heinlein's Grumbles from the Grave, which might mention this; and I'll post a note at the SF WikiProject page in case someone there knows. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll check my copy of GFG in a few... after I eat lunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • NOthing I show in GFG, looking in the index for Hamilton and Nebula. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1954 the back cover was given over..." is that ONLY in 1954, or FROM 1954?

    Not sure; again I will look at the issues when I get back to the house and check. (I'm in a Starbucks waiting for my fifteen-year-old oboeist to finish her orchestra practice). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    From the October 1954 issue for the remainder of the run, it turns out; I've made the change in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bibliographic:
  • "indica" Linky?

    Yes; done.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and supported - the couple of issues remaining I trust you to resolve. And boy, we're really working on Bede, aren't we? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Bede -- maybe one day. When you've done every bishop and I've done every sf magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with regard to Criterion 1a. Tony reminded us at another nomination of Fowler's aversion to unintended repetition of words, which Fowler called jingles. Is the jingle here intended "but was not physically healthy enough for hard physical work"? Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, unintended -- it always amazes me how hard it is to spot that sort of thing in one's own prose. Fixed. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nit-picky comments:

• "quite erratic" and "rather erratic" > maybe simply erratic would suffice

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fees paid doesn't make clear they were paid to writers. It makes sense to us (who receive even less than sf writers!) but maybe not to a lay audience.

  I wasn't sure which point in the article you were talking about, but there's an instance of this in the lead so I tweaked that. Let me know if there are other places this is a problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevermind - I've re-read it, and it seems fine. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention other magazines - I'd take the opportunity to link to some of the others you've written about if they were the direct competition and the source mentions them by name

*:The British competition was Authentic, New Worlds, and Science Fantasy; two of those are linked and the third isn't as relevant as it was more fantasy-oriented. Ashley and Harbottle don't mention the US magazines, so I don't think I should; in the discussion of top rates, for example, I know perfectly well that they're talking about Astounding and Galaxy, but it's something of a synthesis for me to say that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah you can't if the sources don't support it. Too bad. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "As these were novel-length" > this needs to be rephrased - already mentioned that they were novels, and I'd wondered what happened to the novels when they were mentioned earlier. Perhaps try simply dropping the "As these were ... " and begin the sentence with "There was little room", or perhaps, "The long pieces left little room for ...."

  I tried a slightly different tack to fix this; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "New authors also began to appear" > might be better to write something like "to be published"

  Done, with additional changes per a comment of Malleus's below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "each sold their first story to Nebula" > end of a long sentence - might be better to add a semi-colon in front of the "each".

  I think you might be misreading the syntax here -- take another look; but I hope the tweaks for Malleus have shortened this enough. That was a hard sentence to write and I'm open to improving it if we can find a way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's better now. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Organization seems a bit off in the "Contents and reception" section. Before the para about the reception there is quite a bit of information about writers/authors; then in the reception artists and cover art is described, and then back to writers. I think it might flow better if, in the reception paragraph, the writer information comes before the art information to continue from above, if that makes sense?

  Yes, it was a bit back-and-forth. I had a think about this, and what I've done is to move all the artist-related material to its own paragraph. The final paragraph is intended as a summary, included quoted recollections; so the structure is now three paras on fiction and writers, one para on art and artists, and a summary/retrospective para. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a nice improvement. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another nicely done article on a pulp magazine! TK (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm rather surprised that I hadn't heard of this magazine until now, but here are a few ignorant comments anyway:

• "This was higher than the best UK markets, such as New Worlds, and was close to the rates paid by the best markets in the US at that time." Markets don't pay, publishers do.

  I think the root problem here is jargon; sf writers refer to individual magazines as markets, so in that sense a market does pay. You even see things like "John Campbell [editor of Astounding] was my best market that year". However, jargon is just as bad as imprecision, so I've reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hamilton was glad to work with fans trying to make a professional sale ...". I have no idea what that means.

  Sf readers often dream of becoming writers; I suspect this is more true of sf than of other genres, though I couldn't cite that guess. What I meant was that Hamilton worked with sf fans who were subscribers and readers and part of the sf fandom subculture, but who had no writing experience. Few of them (perhaps none) became famous. It's a very minor comment and it takes too much explaining so I've cut it; it's really of interest only to other fans. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Robert Silverberg had begun submitting to Hamilton ...". You make it sound like an SM paradise.

  Hah. More jargon; thanks for spotting this. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hamilton only serialised one novel: Wisdom of the Gods, by Ken Bulmer, which appeared in four parts, starting in the July 1958 issue. Hamilton was planning to serialize a novel by Robert Heinlein ...".

  That's my damn mixed-up AmBrEng. Thanks for finding that; the article should be in BrEng so please fix anything else you spot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and also for the copyedit; I am always impressed at your ability to clean up prose I think is already clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get caught with my own stuff as well; I see what I meant to write, or what I think I wrote. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency-- is Ashley, Mike the same person as Ashley, Michael? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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