Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dime Mystery 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2022 [1].

Dime Mystery Magazine

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the magazine that started the weird menace genre in 1933 -- a subgenre of horror which appears to be about supernatural events but isn't. In these stories, the horrible things that happen to the protagonist always turn out to be the evil machinations of a crazed scientist, or of a greedy relative who is after an inheritance, or something along those lines. Pulp publisher Harry Steeger was looking for a way to improve sales of one of his magazines, and created the new subgenre after he visited the Grand Guignol in Paris. Other magazines soon appeared to cash in on the new market. Weird menace stories only lasted a few years; by the early 1940s Dime Mystery was publishing unexceptional detective fiction. It lasted until 1950, close to the end of the pulp era. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • Apologies in advance if this is a silly question. I have a question about this sentence: Stories based on supernatural events were rare, but did occasionally appear. The lead previously established the magazine's stories had supernatural elements despite ending with more mundane resolutions. If this sentence is connected to the magazine, isn't this a contradiction? Is this sentence connected to the Grand Guignol theater? If so, I think clarification is necessary. It reads more like a blanket statement so I'd tie it down to something to provide more specificity.
    Weird menace stories never had supernatural events; Dime Mystery did publish the occasional story with a supernatural explanation, but mostly it published weird menace (during 1933-1938, anyway). However, weird menace stories appear to be supernatural stories till the ending -- e.g. a ghost is revealed to be a fake. When I was telling my wife about this she said "You mean like Scooby-Doo?" and that's actually pretty accurate. So what I was trying to convey with "something that appeared to be supernatural, but which would ultimately be revealed to have an everyday explanation" was that these stories were not supernatural stories. But then since there were occasional stories that really were supernatural, I felt that had to be mentioned in the lead too. I'm open to rephrasing this if we can come up with a better way to say it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. For whatever reason, it was not clicking together for me, but your explanation does clear it up for me. The prose is clear about it so I do not think any adjustements or revisions need to be made.
    Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Would a sadism link be beneficial in the lead (or even a link to the sadism and masochism in fiction article)? It is pretty well known by readers, but a link may be helpful for those who are not 100% aware of its meaning.
    Good idea; the latter article is a particularly good target. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. The second article is definitely a useful one imo.
    Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If horror stories is linked in the lead, shouldn't mystery stories and detective stories also get links for consistency? Horror should also be linked in the article to match the lead. If mystery and detective get links in the lead, they should be linked in the article as well.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question than anything. Was it common for a pulp magazine to have a novel in an issue? It just seems rather odd to me as I wouldn't expect a novel in a magazine, but I'm not familiar with these kinds of publications.
    It wasn't the general rule, but some magazines did it on a regular basis, or even were built around that idea. Fantastic Novels was one example. Often these were shorter than would be acceptable as a novel nowadays, but a long lead story could still be called a novel even if it was too short to actually be published as one. But there were several magazines which, like Dime Mystery for its first few issues, published a full-length novel in a single issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation!
    Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Edgar Wallace should be linked in the article.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did this magazine ever attract analysis from feminist scholars? I'd imagine they would have a field day with how women are represented in these stories. I do not see a lot of academic analysis in general in this article so it could just be the case that this magazine and its stories were overlooked in that department.
    I would love to find material like this but haven't found any. There must be hundreds of feminist analyses of horror fiction in general but I don't know of anything that specifically talks about this magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. That is what I thought. Maybe one day, someone will discover this and write a paper or something about it. It just reminds me of my days in graduate school when people would go back to lesser-known material to study.
    Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I have a clarification question after reading about "Burnโ€”Lovely Lady!". I believe I know the answer, but I want to make sure. Was there any form of censorship in place during the magazine's publication? I'm more familiar with the comics side of horror at this time (i.e. EC Comics) which became firmly regulated by the Comics Code Authority in the 1950s, but before that, things were much looser in terms of censorship. Was a similar thing true for pulp fiction?
    Many of the publishers were in New York City, and I know that in the late 1930s the Mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, decided to crack down on magazines that he felt were pornographic. Nothing I have that mentions this says anything about Dime Mystery, though; and I think La Guardia's focus was on the nudes on the covers more than the contents. There were magazines that were much more offensive to the eye than Dime Mystery -- Spicy Adventure for example. Probably more explicit content too, though what was considered explicit back then would be pretty tame now. It's possible that the move away from weird menace was because of La Guardia's efforts, but it's also possible that the genre was played out and Steeger decided to try something different. Without a source I don't think I can add anything about this, unfortunately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Even with comics, there did seem to be a lot of focus on the covers so I am not surprised a similar energy was had for these magazines.
    Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Apologies for being super nitpick-y, but for the note, should the pen name be in quotations as name are not traditional presented in that manner?
    I've removed the quotes -- I think I've seen it done that way but on reflection I think you're right that it's not the usual way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work as well. I greatly appreciate your work on these magazine articles. They are an invaluable resource for anyone who wants to know about them or is already into them. My comments are fairly minor. I did have some clarification questions and apologies again if the answers to those are obvious. They are just questions I thought about while reading through the article. Once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. Best of luck with the FAC!

Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the review and the compliment! Replies above; in a couple of cases I haven't made any changes yet but can do so if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. I greatly appreciate the time and energy you have put into your explanations. Everything looks solid to me and I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it!
    Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Moisejp

Hi Mike, I hope you're well. I'll review this, seems really interesting so far.

  • By the way, I noticed repetition related to this between the "Publishing history" and "Contents and reception" sections: "The new magazine struggled,[1] but rather than cancel it, Steeger decided to change it to focus more on horror" / "Rather than giving up on the magazine, which would have meant losing its second-class mailing permit, Steeger decided to change its focus to horror." Would it likely be better to avoid this repetition? Moisejp (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next sentence too: "The lead novel was eliminated, and replaced with a story of no more than half novel length, allowing more fiction to be included" / "There were no more complete novels; the word "Book" had already been dropped from the cover two issues earlier.[3][9] Rogers Terrill, the editor, now wanted lead stories no longer than about thirty-five thousand words, instead of about fifty-five thousand words." Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the second one of these but I'd like to keep the first -- I agree it really belongs in the "Contents and reception" section, but a brief mention seems necessary to explain why the title changed and what Steeger's response to the poor sales was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, along the same lines, I also got confused just now, on my subsequent read-through, that at the first mention of weird menace in the main narrative, it is only defined as "horror" but if the reader goes quite a bit farther down, we learn that a requirement is "appears supernatural, but ultimately has an everyday explanation" (which matches how it's described in the lead). But it may be okay. Your choice to have a "Publication history" that overlaps a bit with other sections is not a convention I'm used to, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not valid; and if we do assume it's valid, then a bit of overlapping may be okay, even if it's not what I'm used to. Moisejp (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've used this approach in other magazine articles, and usually it works well because there's rarely much overlap between the business aspects of a magazine's history and the sort of fiction it printed. Here I can see it's confusing not to be clearer at the start. I've added a more detailed explanation of what kind of horror story Steeger was looking for in the "Publishing history" section, at the risk of repetition. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "the publisher, Harry Steeger, was inspired to create the genre by the Grand Guignol theater in Paris." This feels a bit incomplete to me, and I started typing up an edit along the lines of "inspired to create this genre by performances he saw at the Grand Guignol theater in Paris." But then I realized I couldn't be sure he'd seen these performances, and he may have just read about them. In the main narrative there is "which provided gory dramatizations", which I think helps make the idea feel more complete there. Moisejp (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He had seen it, and you're right that should be clearer. Added a bit; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a little confused about this: Terrill outlined definitions of terror, horror, and mystery; later it says "the plot of Dance of the Skeletons" satisfied Terrill's requirements for terror, mystery"; and Page tells how he included the elements of terror and horror. I think it's implied that all three elements were requirements but the later details only mention satisfying the requirements of terror and mystery, and then terror and horror. Moisejp (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I read those comments as less of a statement that Terrill would check all three boxes off in a formal way when assessing a story, and more as general thoughts about the kind of thing he was looking for, so I don't see it as a real conflict. Perhaps that's because I'm familiar with the industry? Pulp magazine publishing was a fast-moving business that did not look for high-quality proseย ; it was about sniffing out stories that would raise circulation. The points you mention are all from quotes, so I'm having a hard time seeing how to fix this since I can't mess with the quotes. Do you have any thoughts about how to make this clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor suggestion, but would the Issue data for Dime Mystery Magazine table work even better in the "Bibliographic details" section?
    Done; it overlaps the notes section that way, so I collapsed it by default. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Moisejp (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and apparent comprehensiveness (I don't know much about the topic, but it seems comprehensive to me). I'm satisfied with the edits and explanations related to my concerns. Moisejp (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

Claiming this for reviewย :) Will begin reading once I'm done with another FAC review

What did I tell you?"
๐Ÿ“ "Don't get complacent..." 10:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • "pulp magazine that was published from 1932 to 1950" I feel like the sentence would mean the same thing and still sound okay if "that was" got dropped
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar sentiments in "appeared to be supernatural, but which would ultimately be revealed to have an everyday explanation" - could simplify to "appeared to be supernatural but would be revealed..." ultimately there seems unnecessary in my view
    I dropped "which". I was trying to use "ultimately" to indicate that the revelation would be at the end of the story. If you think that's clear enough without "ultimately", then yes it can be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly think it can be removed. The key part of the sentence is the revelation; I don't think it's a net positive for the lead to specify that such revelation happens at the climax or near the end. Most if not every plot twist is like that anyway - "appears supernatural but revealed to be ordinary" already implies something happens at the end.
    What did I tell you?"
    ๐Ÿ“ "Don't get complacent..." 09:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new magazine struggled" with what exactly? Readership? Sales? Critical reception?
    Changed to "The new magazine's sales were disappointing". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we change "were disappointing" to something like "underperformed"? This kind of wording (especially considering we do not know who is supposed to be disappointed) engenders a sense of negativity in readers that makes the sentence seem less than neutral. Also the current wording makes it seem like Steeger changed the sales' genre.
    I made it "weak" -- "underperformed" isn't wrong, but I want to avoid the reader thinking there was a target sales number, which is not how the sources talk about it. Of course the target was profitability in general. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same thought on the "this was a good rate for the pulps..." the vague fluff can be cut. Simply saying the rates "gave Popular the same amount of prestige as Street & Smith and other publishers" is sharper. At least, if that is what "class" is supposed to mean - idk what you're trying to say here. Also, what is "this" in "this was a good rate" referring to? Steeger's rates? Gardner's? Did Garner contribute to Dime? A little unclear.
    The source does make the comparison but on reflection I think it's not necessary, so I've compressed this. I've now made it "these rates" to make it clear it isn't referring to just the three-quarter cent rate or the higher rate alone. The important point is that paying well and early made the magazine a much more attractive market for writers. That's what I meant by "class"; writers would pick the "best" pulps to submit to first, and if their submissions were rejected would work their way down the list to the low- and slow-paying publishers. I'm glad you asked about Gardner; the source does mention him in this connection, but looking at it again it seems to be a general statement, not about this magazine in particular. I went through an index of Gardner's work and found nothing of his in Dime Mystery, so I've cut the mention of him here and in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{
    MOS:APOSTROPHE
    )
    Done, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Differentiating "popular" lowercase from "Popular" uppercase is obviously easy for folks who can see just fine, but for those who use screen readers, it might get confusing at best. Consider "with detective stories becoming more popular (lowercase), so two of the first four magazines launched by Popular (uppercase)" or "another Popular (uppercase) title".
    I hadn't thought of that, but you're right it's an issue. I got around it by changing one instance of "popular" to "well-known" (not a synonym, but equally true in that sentence) and changing the one you quote above to "increasing in popularity". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick - The "Popular soon launched..." sentence, while not incorrect grammatically, contains 3 independent clauses all joined by semicolons. Reads somewhat unwieldy to me. You can split the sentence, but it's completely optional
    Yes, split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was a good rate for the pulps..." also WAAAY too long imo. I have the same thoughts on many other sentences here with semicolons, which seems to be used a lot here. For the example, the sentence about the J.G. Reeder series has way too many short pauses in a short amount of time and it dampens the flow of it all. There are multiple sentences here that could benefit from being halved, and it is up to you to choose which ones.
    I've changed a few -- you're right that semicolons are a vice of mine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the selling point was 'A New $2.00 Detective Novel', as the cover declared, complete in each issue" with this structure it is ambiguous which is being declared by the cover. The tagline, or the "complete in each issue" bit?
    The bit in quotes is what's on the cover -- I was hoping the quotes were enough to make this clear, especially with the cover image next to the paragraph. What would make this plainer to the reader? Perhaps "the selling point, as the cover declared, was 'A New $2.00 Detective Novel', complete in each issue" but that seems clunkier to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would take your suggestion and then split the "complete in each issue" bit into its own sentence. "the selling point, as the cover declared... Novels in each issue were full-length."
    Done slightly differently -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Myster Magazine" is this a typo
    Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrill's surname appears in four consecutive sentences - perhaps we can replace one of them with a pronoun
    One cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either lose the second "more" in "more bizarre and more deadly" or change "more deadly" to "deadlier"
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although most of the fiction was low-quality pulp writing" something tells me this reads as an opinion written in Wikipedia's voice and therefore needs attribution or clarification
    This is in the lead; in the body it's indirectly attributed to Michael Cook. Do you think the attribution needs to be in the lead too? I don't think it's controversial to saw that much of fiction in pulp magazines was "low-quality pulp writing". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be more confident in the prose if we made that attribution more direct - sentence would flow maaaarginally better as well. And no, you don't need to do the same for the corresponding part in the lead. I agree with you thatthe wording is not that contentious.
    What did I tell you?"
    ๐Ÿ“ "Don't get complacent..." 09:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Reworded to quote Cook directly so the attribution is clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1937, the weird menace magazines as a whole" do we need "the" and "as a whole" there?
    Good point; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an example of the 'sex-sadistic phase' of the genre" trim to "genre's 'sex-sadistic phase'"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were all painted" lose the "all"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all from me! I have to give you 10s for the prose, as it is extremely well-written and engaging! Man I could not help but think about Scooby-Doo when reading the entire thing - surprised that the article for weird menace does not mention the show at all. Anywho. All the prose needs is some tightening in lots of places, a couple more long pauses, and some clarifications. After that, I'd say the article would be as well-written as it can be

Thanks! And thanks for the review. I've made most of the changes you suggested; there are a couple of follow-up comments above. Yes, Scooby-Doo is an obvious parallel, but so far I haven't seen a source make that point! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second round of changes made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie excellent. I did another readthrough of the article, and here are the third batch of comments I got:
  • "the publisher, Harry Steeger, was inspired to create the genre by the gory scenes he had seen at the Grand Guignol theater". Two things. First, I don't think one person singlehandedly "creates a genre" like that - I see better ways to phrase it. Second, "gory scenes" can imply that the plays he saw there involved a lot of gore, or some real-life violence happened to occur within the theatre and it was so gory that Steeger developed a morbid sort of inspiration from it. Admittedly I find the latter more fun and intriguing, but alas, that is not the case here. I would suggest the wording be clearer.
    Fair enough. I made it "was inspired to create the new policy by the gory dramatizations he had seen at the Grand Guignol theater in Paris". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The author [Terrill] mentioned his predicament..." personally not a fan of
    WP:ELEVAR
    , as I argue that writing style is more for the realm of magazines and newspapers than encyclopedias such as this one.
    Not sure what you mean here -- are you saying "predicament" is elegant variation? And I see I need to clarify this anyway -- the author was not Terrill. Now reads: "Terrill had a novel he wanted to use, but it had been written for the old policy, and Terrill asked the author to cut it down from sixty thousand words in only a few days to be used in the first issue under the new policy. The author complained to Norvell Page, a fast and prolific pulp writer. about Terrill's request, and Page produced a new thirty-five thousand word novel, Dance of the Skeletons, by the deadline." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, whoops. Thank you for the clarification - I thought "the author" was referring to Terrill, so I was concerned about that being a case of ELEVAR. Using the word "predicament" wasn't the problem here.
    What did I tell you?"
    ๐Ÿ“ "Don't get complacent..." 23:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Those are the final comments I have in store. Wonderful, comprehensive work - I learned a buncha stuff while reading through the article! I hope my comments above have been constructive and helpful. Please feel free to object to anything you think falls short of being constructive
What did I tell you?"
๐Ÿ“ "Don't get complacent..." 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the detailed review; I really appreciate it. More replies above; let me know if you think more changes are needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And one more reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my review here has wrapped up. I am now confident to support based on prose quality. Note that I am not super acquainted with the topic area so I cannot say anything with certainty wrt. comprehensiveness, but I personally felt like I learnt everything I needed to know walking away from the article.

What did I tell you?"
๐Ÿ“ "Don't get complacent..." 05:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

By the way, if you have the time and effort to do a prose review, I have

What did I tell you?"
๐Ÿ“ "Don't get complacent..." 04:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Image review

Source review -- pass

Hi Mike:

  • Formatting looks fine and all links work but I don't think we need Ashley linked four times in the Sources section?
  • Reliability-wise, I know you sought in vain at WP:RS for comments on Galactic Central back in 2016, and it was passed as reliable in the subsequent Weird Tales FAC, so I don't think we need revisit here. Xenophile though is a new one on me -- I see what appears to be a bookshop, a publisher, and a magazine on Google, I assume we're talking the magazine? Was it professional?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the duplicate links to Ashley. Xenophile is a fanzine, so wouldn't normally be considered reliable, but the reliable sources here are citing it explicitly as their source, so I think that's evidence that it's trusted by the professionals. This Google Books search shows it cited numerous times by reliable sources, including Ashley, Bleiler, and Weinberg. The content is an interview with Harry Steeger, so it's not about amateur opinion; the question is whether the fanzine is a reliable source for reporting Steeger's words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, in my milhist sphere I know reliable works that cite David Irving and Paul Carell, but try referencing them directly in a WP article...! Obviously not something as controversial here and I can see that the few citations relying on the interview are pretty basic so yes, borderline, but okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tried to use the secondary sources that were clearly drawing their information from Hardin where possible. The main things here that are only cited to Hardin are the per word rate and sales figures during and after the war. I cite the interview for the Grand Guignol as well, but I could drop that if necessary because Jones does cover it in a source that predates Hardin, so it's there as backup. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

Couldn't resist reading the whole article and lightly copyediting as I went, so just let me know if any probs there. Looks comprehensive and logically structured. BTW, does this genre mean you're done with SF mags now...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedits look fine as always. No, there are
Asimov's, for example. Mike Ashley's last book is now out; it goes up to 2020 so it will let me do some of these. But some of the marginal ones are interesting too; I'll probably bring The Black Cat here next, which has some interesting details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Look forward to that, and happy to support here taking Sturm's image review as read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gave it a read-through, see nothing to quibble about.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2022 (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/Dime_Mystery_Magazine/archive1&oldid=1124447685"