Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Argosy (magazine)/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 December 2023 [1].

Argosy (magazine)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential magazines in American history. Argosy was the first pulp magazine and spawned hundreds of imitators and an entire industry that lasted almost sixty years. It was the first brick in the publishing empire built by Frank Munsey, an often-reviled publishing mogul of the early 20th century. It outlasted Munsey, who died in 1925, but the magazine eventually succumbed in 1978, though it has been revived several times since then.

The article has one unusual feature. In researching the history of its editors, I found that none of the secondary sources listed them correctly for a short period in 1942. I sent a correction to one of the sources, and they accepted it and have updated the relevant pages, which the article now cites. I don't think this is a COI in any way but thought I should mention it. It's an example of what we often tell new editors -- if you have original information, get it published and then we can include it in a Wikipedia article. This is the first time I've ever actually had to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

Saw that the peer review closed without any comments. I'll try to find the time to review this, though I make no promises. Leaving this here for now at least. TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TompaDompa, I think this could do with some TLC if you have the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find the time in the next few days or so. TompaDompa (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Lead
  • "adventure stories of all genres" seems like a contradiction in terms.
    This was meant to refer to the policy described by Bittner in 1928 of printing action stories in any genre, even romance. Looking at the source again Mott doesn't make this clear for the 1896 magazine, which is what's being described here, so I cut it to just "adventure stories", which Mott does fully support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adapted
    WP:EASTEREGG
    situation, but that's really a minor quibble.
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments below about the 1979 issues.
    Replied there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history
  • I would provide inflation adjustments for the currency amounts to give some additional context.
    I've added a few. Rather that put an adjustment in for every single amount given, which would quickly get obtrusive, I've tried to add them in such a way that amounts quickly following in the same paragraph will be approximately clear from context or very simple ratios such as half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a juvenile weekly paper" – I gather that this is "juvenile" in the sense of "aimed at young readers" as opposed to "childish". I suspect many readers will not be familiar with this terminology, so I would either link the term or try to rephrase it.
    I made it "a weekly paper for children". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first instalment" – that should be "installment" in US English, no? This recurs a few times.
    All fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Munsey had bought a pew in a popular church for $1,000 a year" – I'm guessing this is meant to illustrate reckless spending habits, but what does it mean, precisely? Did he pay the church to reserve a spot for him, or what?
    The source is describing Fogler's visit to see Munsey, which included a Sunday, so they went to church: "To the visitor's [Fogler's] amazement, Munsey held a pew of his own, to which they were ushered with attentive bows. It cost $1,000 a year, Fogler was told, and he ticketed church pew and hotel room together among his memories." Munsey had begun to spend more freely when Argosy's became temporarily very profitable in 1887, and evidently this was part of that. How about "Munsey had a personal pew in a popular church, which had cost him $1,000 a year"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good to me. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a good reason to link both
    WP:REDLINK
    , and considering it was converted into the latter publication after only a couple of years I would expect it to redirect to that article.
    I checked the history to be sure, and they are generally treated as a single lineage, so I've linked the first. I thought about removing the second link but I think the interested reader would be more confused by the lack of a link to the second one, as they might easily not realize that the two are the same unless they follow both links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I'm not sure what the best solution is here. Not something that would be a dealbreaker for FA status, at any rate. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Panic of 1893" – "in" seems an odd choice of word here. Perhaps "during"?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was the first magazine to print only fiction" – if this is true with no qualifiers, I should think it warrants mentioning in the
    WP:LEAD
    .
    It's not true, and I've cut it from the body. I found this statement in multiple sources, but The Black Cat (and I wrote that article, so I should have remembered this) was also all-fiction and began publication a year earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to re-add the statement one day as it's widely repeated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increased their price to at twenty cents" – "to at"?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The low price, sustained through most of the 1920s, must have been a strong benefit to circulation" – this phrasing ("must") sounds argumentative, and there is no
    WP:INTEXT
    attribution. I don't think this is (as much of) a problem for phrasings using e.g. "possibly", "likely", or "perhaps".
    I went ahead and attributed it inline to Moskowitz which I think solves the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely Sam Moskowitz should be linked?
    Linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bittner lasted for three years as editor; his successors throughout the 1930s only lasted a year or two each." – Don Moore also lasted three years, did he not?
    Reworded -- I think that wording was left over from before I was able to do more research about the exact transition dates. The subsequent paragraphs (and the tables) give the details so I could just cut this if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plagiarism story seems like something there would be a lot more to say about. Is there?
    Bedford-Jones wrote an account of the event here (first page of his article, p. 35) which is quite entertaining and I did think about giving more of the story, perhaps in a footnote. It seemed a bit off-topic and I decided against it, but if you feel it's worth it, I could put a note in giving more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a footnote is a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the popular Take It or Leave It radio show" – radio shows should be given in italics, right?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four more monthly issues appeared from August to November 1979, published by Lifetime Wholesalers, Inc." – I'm confused. Was this a continuation, a revival, or what? This sentence seems a bit tacked on (and maybe out of place?).
    Frustratingly there is almost no information available about these. My guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that a completely separate company acquired the name from Popular and restarted the publication, but quickly failed. I can find no references to it beyond the SFE article, which says almost nothing, and I am fairly sure that the SFE article draws its information from the Galactic Central checklist page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Sometimes we have to accept that we simply don't have the sources we would need to say the things we want to say. TompaDompa (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contents and reception
Men's magazine era

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; much appreciated. I've responded to some of the ones I could deal with quickly; will continue this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, all replied to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, I've dealt with the two additional comments you left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. The article looks good, but I am unfortunately not sufficiently confident in my own ability to discern whether an article on this topic is up to

WP:Featured article standards or falls short of them to be comfortable endorsing this unequivocally. I have no particular misgivings about the article, I just don't feel qualified enough to assess its quality to such a high standard to give an unreserved appraisal. TompaDompa (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Image review
  • The LoC description is fine for the Bains tag, but you've got another tag on there that it doesn't satisfy. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this edit fixes that, if you mean the publication date tag. If the Bains tag is enough there's no need for the other tag anyway, though if I ever do find the publication date I'll make a note of it on the Commons page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Metal_monster_sharp.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I've added a photo of Gypsy Rose Lee, FYI, in case you see any issues with the licensing there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

References

  • Reference numbers are from this version.
  • Ordinarily I would suggest linking the short cites to the bibliography (e.g., by using {{sfn}} cites). Though it's normally a matter of preference, here, given the prevalence of anonymous sources, I would strongly encourage doing so.
    I understand the benefits of sfn but dislike it as an editor. I may try switching to it as some point but for this article I'd rather see if I can get the cites in order without it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are archived versions of Galactic Central being linked to in the first instance? It looks like the site is still live.
    All the pages from that site that have numerals in the URL are subject to change every quarter as the site is reindexed to take into account new content. The URLs will never go dead, but they'll unpredictably change so that the citation information is no longer on that page. I've handled this by marking them as dead immediately and giving an archive link. I agree it's not a great solution but I don't know of a better way to deal with the issue. I'm open to suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense; that's a better solution than letting them get out of date. The only other thing I can think of would be to email the guy behind the website—I can't see why it would be in his interest for links to his website (whether from Wikipedia or anywhere else) to get dated every quarter. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He does have a method of permalinking, but the last time I tried to use it (a month or two ago) it was broken. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the cites to websites (there are many) appear to incorrectly give the access date as the source date.
    For Galactic Central there are no source dates that I can find -- I think the rule is to give the access date for that parameter in those cases? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would just be confusing, because you wouldn't know what the date actually meant. Looking at Help:Citation Style 1 § Dates, the rule is "When a source does not have a publication date, use |date=n.d. or |date=nd". (News to me too—I've just been leaving them blank.) {{cite web}} also gives the intel that "The date of a Web page, PDF, etc. with no visible date can sometimes be established by searching the page source or document code for a created or updated date". The second is certainly not required, but I would do the first, or at least remove the dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this one is still remaining. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, missed this. I'm removing the access dates now. The template documentation for cite web for the source date field says "Full date when the source was published; if unknown, use access-date instead; do not wikilink"; I always interpreted that as meaning "put in the access date", but perhaps it meant "ignore this parameter in favour of the access date". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernameunique: I think I've cleaned them all up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #12, #121, #123 — Suggesting using "name-list-style = amp" parameter
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #170 — What is this ("Anonymous (December 1942), p. 20") citing to? There's no anonymous work from December 1942 in the Sources, and the only December 1942 works there are a) have identified authors and b) don't include page 20. (This is another good example of why linked short cites would be better, by the way.)
    Fixed -- three separate errors on my part here: it was by Harriet Bradfield, not anonymous; it was 1943, not 1942; and I had not even added that source to the list of sources. Should be OK now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • The one-page sources don't need to be listed here, with short cites above; they can be listed just in the References section. For example, "Stone (2007), pp. 15–16" is a useful short cite, because it specifies which two pages out of a 39-page work are being cited. "Abbot (December 1942), p. 6", by contrast, is not; the entire source is on only page 6.
    I'd like to keep these as they are, if that's OK -- I do it this way because then I don't have to remember to change back and forth between citing in the references and the sources if I add or remove a second citation to a source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking the source names (e.g., The New York Times), and the publishers
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anonymous (May 1953)" — The other Writer's Digest pieces use Roman numerals for the volume number
    I'm happy to convert it if you think consistency is worth it, but they did actually switch to Arabic numerals for volume numbers briefly and this volume is one of those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's the way I like to do it too. (The amount of time I've wasted trying to find covers of journals to see how they style the volume number...) It just seemed unlikely because, as you say, it seesaws from Roman to Arabic. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the "Tymn, Marshall B.; Ashley, Mike" cites — Suggesting using "name-list-style = amp" parameter
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ellis, Douglas; Hulse, Ed; Weinberg, Robert" — Ditto
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hughes, William; Punter, David; Smith, Andrew" — Ditto
    Done. I wasn't aware of this parameter; thanks for pointing it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hulse, Ed (2013)" — ISBN not fully hyphenated
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Munsey, Frank A. (1907)" — It should be out of copyright, can you find a link to the source online?
    Found and linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Osborne, William Hamilton (1921)" — Seeing as you have a link, you don't really need the OCLC. Small matter, though
    You're right; hadn't thought of that. I guess it might be worth keeping them as the link might fail at some point in the future? Also fine with removing them if you think that's best. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raine, William MacLeod (1921)" — Ditto
    As above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also made a few minor edits while checking. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- I've responded to a couple of things tonight but may have to wait till tomorrow or Tuesday to finish. Thanks for the helpful copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, I think I've now responded to all points -- sorry about the delay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, sorry for letting this slip. I saw one lingering retrieval date given as source date (#19), which I trust you'll clean up—you might want to double check, too, just in case there's another one or two. But it looks good overall, and I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that one and looked through again but couldn't find others. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Argosy
  • "the manager of the Western Union office there": could rephrase slightly as "the manager of the local Western Union office", but your call
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Argosy
  • "Top-Notch Magazine was a holdout at fifteen cents": I'm not sure what this means, and it may be a bit too AmEng for many readers
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dewart, Popular Publications
  • "for Munsey.[31][49][50][15]" and "50,000.[31][66][67][68][note 5]": any chance of bundling some of the multiple cites into a less obtrusive form?
    Yes, those are rather ugly. Have bundled all the ones where there are four citations together. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of Contents and reception; more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more to add. Just one comment in the Science fiction and fantasy section:

  • "Argosy did print" and "Barsoom series had begun", had appeared': any reason why not "Argosy printed" and "Barsoom series began"?
    I changed the first one. For the second, the series began in All-Story, which is in the past at the point the article is talking about it, so I think the past perfect is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One final comment (more a point of style than anything else) isn't going to hold up my support on this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • "Munsey kept to the weekly schedule without missing an issue". This seems to be saying the same thing twice.
    The key point is that he didn't miss an issue, but I think "Munsey managed to avoid missing an issue" wouldn't read as naturally. I've made it "Munsey managed to keep to the weekly schedule"; does that convey the point still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. If you want a little more emphasis, maybe 'Munsey managed to maintain the regular weekly schedule' or similar?
    Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 sample issues". I had to reread that to get the point. Maybe 'Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 free-sample issues' or 'Over five months the campaign gave away 11,500,000 sample issues'?
    I took the second option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Argosy" section: perhaps a date before the third sentence?
    Done, but I'm not sure that reads more smoothly -- what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am clearly missing something. The first date in that section is still in the third sentence.
    I misunderstood your comment, though in retrospect it's quite clear. For some reason I thought you wanted me to move the date in the third sentence up to the start of the third sentence. I've reverted that change and added the year to the first sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine briefly" → 'which was briefly retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine'?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1925 Munsey died." A little more detail would be nice, if only his age and the cause of death.
    Done. Britt doesn't say he died of appendicitis; it was probably complications of that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at least four issues between Fall 1977 and Summer 1978". I don't think you need upper-case initial letters when not referring to specific issues.
    Those are the issue dates so I reworded to make that more natural. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magazine has been revived three times since then." This came as a shock. I had to back track through the previous two paragraphs to realise that you had implied, without expressly stating, that the magazine had ceased publication.
    Reworded the earlier paragraph to make it clearer that it (temporarily) ceased publication.
    Mike, could you quote this for me, my wheels are clearly spinning. I have just reread the three paragraphs in question three times and it still seems to leap from "Argosy's circulation remained over a million until at least 1973" to "The magazine has been revived three times since then" giving me a real 'whaaa ...?' feeling.
    I just realized that "The magazine" is confusing, coming as it does after mentions of the spinoffs, so I've changed that to "Argosy". Perhaps that paragraph should be first in that small section? Here's the sequence of events. Popular ceased to publish the magazine in 1978. Four more issues appeared from Lifetime Wholesalers, dated August through November 1979. I have no information at all about those issues -- presumably Lifetime Wholesalers bought the title from Popular and quickly discovered it was an unprofitable venture. The magazine ceased publication then until the first of the revivals, in 1989. The spinoffs are not issues of Argosy; they're covered here as that's how the secondary sources discuss them. Do the edits I just made help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed. How would you feel about "The last issue was dated November 1979." → 'The last issue was dated November 1979, after which regular publication ceased.'?
    Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bittner's comments in 1928 asked for "any good clean story with sound plot, rapid-fire action and strong masculine appeal will be considered" ". The grammar seems out here.
    Fixed by trimming the quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- all responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am down to the start of "Other genres" and will try to finish the review later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argosy briefly lost its permit as a result, but did not miss any issues." This seems to beg a question. Having lost its permit, how was it reinstated before an issue was missed?
    The sources don't say. The main source for this is Barbas, linked in the article; she goes into great detail on the case affecting Esquire, which (she argues) was a free speech landmark. From this page it's apparent Esquire didn't miss an issue either, so presumably either the magazines agreed to clean themselves up until the appeals were over or else the removal of the permits was stayed pending the appeal results, but Barbas gives no details for Argosy and I don't see those details for Esquire either (though I might have missed them). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might be inclined to add 'the reasons for this are unclear' or similar, but that is very much optional.
I'm always hesitant to add notes like that, since I don't want to imply in Wikipedia's voice that "nobody knows the answer". Perhaps the answer is in some source I haven't seen yet. I would have thought the trade journals of the day would have covered it, but I haven't found anything like that yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. A classic. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Argosy_(magazine)/archive1&oldid=1188679468"