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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2016 [1].

---

Ghost Stories (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early fantasy pulp magazine. It was probably doomed from the start by its narrow focus on ghost stories, but it puttered along for several years in the 1920s and 1930s, and occasionally published material by well-known authors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

• RE: "Ghost Stories was a pulp magazine which published 64 issues ...". The word "which" is okay, but "that" is correct.

  Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Did the magazine publish the 64 issues? In the next paragraph you write "The publisher, Bernarr Macfadden, also published ..."; later you say "Ghost Stories was published by Bernarr Macfadden".

  I take your point, but this is a common idiom in writing about magazines; one also sees phrases like "the magazine published stories about". I think this is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "It was a companion magazine to True Story and True Detective Stories, and focused almost entirely on stories about ghosts, with many of the stories written by staff writers but presented under pseudonyms in a true confession. You can avoid repeating the word "stories" with something like -> "It was a companion magazine to True Story and True Detective Stories, focusing almost entirely on stories about ghosts, many of which were written by staff writers but presented under pseudonyms as true confessions".

  Yes, that's an improvement. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing history and contents[edit]

• RE: "Ghost Stories followed this format, with the contents mostly written by the publisher's staff writers, and attributed in print to a first-person narrator". How else could the stories have been attributed?

  I think it's more common to see "attribute" used when talking about an attribution made after the publication and not evident on original publication -- e.g. "The story 'Imprisoned with the Pharaohs' appeared in 1924 as by Harry Houdini, but has since been attributed to H.P. Lovecraft". I was trying to make it clear here that the attribution appeared in the magazine itself; the intention was to persuade the reader that these were true stories, not fiction. Is there a better way to make that clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "The magazine was initially printed on slick paper". What's slick paper? Is it a technical term?

  Yes; I moved the link up to the first occurrence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- I picked this mistake up last night. I see you've now linked "slick". Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "Carl Jacobi's first published story, "The Haunted Ring", appeared in the final issue, though this was not his first sale—"Mive", which he had sold to Weird Tales, did not appear in print until the following month". The part about "Mive" is the kind of off-topic detail that belongs in a footnote.

  Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "An arrangement was set up by Macfadden with Walter Hutchinson ..". Surely this a separate paragraph.

  I try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs, and in this case I was hoping that there would be some apparent continuity since like the preceding sentences this discusses the contents, but I take your point. Split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about single-sentence paragraphs, but this section definitely belongs on its own. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "The magazine was initially fairly successful". What does "fairly" mean?

  Unfortunately the source is vague; Hersey just says "it had a short period of prosperity and then began to lose ground". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic detail[edit]

• Here you link "slick". I see now it's a technical term!

  Yes; I moved the link to the first occurrence; thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "The price was 25 cents throughout; it had 128 pages when it was pulp-sized, and 96 pages when it was a bedsheet and when it was a large pulp" -> "The price was 25 cents throughout; it had 128 pages when pulp-sized, and 96 pages when a bedsheet and large pulp". You have three instances of "when it was". Drop at least one or two.

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "a subsidiary of the company which owned the rights". which->that

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "Both magazines were in large pulp format, with 96 pages, and both were priced at 50 cents". Reword to lose a "both".

  Done, but I'm not sure I found the best phrasing -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably join this sentence to the previous one with a colon. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: "The editorial director of Constructive Publishing during MacFadden's ownership was Fulton Oursler; his assistants, who worked on the magazine, were Harry A. Keller, W. Adolphe Roberts, George Bond, Daniel Wheeler, and Arthur B. Howland, who (in that order) each spent close to a year editing, though the dates of transition for each are not known". You repeat "who" and "each". There are several ways to re-write this sentence.

  I had a go at this; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; you've a good eye for weak prose. Replies are inline above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Singora[edit]

I like articles like this: interesting; short and sharp; no waffle or bloat! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

• First impression, I'll review this more in depth later; why are the images (on Commons, not the thumbs) so awfully small? Being PD, I don't see why we couldn't show them in high res? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd use higher-res images if I could get them, but the source for most rare pulp images is Galactic Central, and he only has low-res images. I own most sf and fantasy pulps, but I don't have any of this title, or I'd scan them myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite a few hi res scans of other covers though (Google search for Ghost Stories magazine), or are the ones shown here of particular significance? FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really; I picked them as images that would look good at a small thumbnail; not all pictures look OK at small sizes. I'll have a look through Google images and see if I can spot other candidates; let me know if you see ones you think would work well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Will continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like an oversight that it isn't mentioned anywhere where this magazine was published? I'd expect this to be mentioned both in the intro and under publishing history... As far as I can see, you can only deduct the country of origin down by "Bibliographic details", because New Jersey is mentioned... FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point; I added "U.S." in the lead. I think the mention of New Jersey and New York in the bibliographic details section makes it unnecessary to be more specific in the body; I'd mention it in the publishing history but the sources don't focus on it; they just give the location of the two publishers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "often accompanied by faked photographs to make the stories appear more believable." Only the intro states these were fakes.

  In the body I have "photographs purporting to be of their protagonists"; is that good enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "published 64 issues" This number is only stated in the intro.

  Added to the bibliographic details section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Any info on the artists behind the covers? In any case, it seems like an omission that not a single word is devoted to the cover art?

  There's nothing in the Ashley 1985 article, which is the main discussion. The ISFDB has some of the covers credited -- e.g. see here -- but I don't like to use the ISFDB as a standalone source when nothing else mentions something, since the data is crowd-sourced (though it does go through an editing process, so it's sometimes an acceptable source). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something could be found through Google? Or in the magazines themselves? Could be nice to at least mention a couple of the artists. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the magazines, unfortunately. I can't swear there are no sources out there that discuss the artists, but I haven't been able to find any. It's actually pretty difficult to search for this magazine because the title is such a common term, but I've tried a few things and had no luck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good to me, would of course be a bonus if any info on the covers and artists could be found. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've had a look at this and can't really find much to say about it! I have some minor points, but they are largely a question of taste and do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " Frank Belknap Long, Hugh B. Cave, Victor Rousseau, Stuart Palmer, and Robert W. Sneddon all sold stories to Ghost Stories, and Carl Jacobi's first published story, "The Haunted Ring", appeared in the final issue": It would be nice to have a word or two to say who these people were; presumably significant ghost/horror writers? Otherwise it is not clear why they are mentioned.

  Ashley lists the last three as "all well known in the fantasy field"; the other two are described as "other pulp writers", meaning that they were already established elsewhere, and published here as recognized names. The list now starts with "Popular writers such as", which I think does it -- Ashley's point is that the writers were sometimes well known but the stories were not necessarily good as a result, and reading the source again I see I omitted that point, so I've added a few words to make that clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The publisher, Bernarr Macfadden, also published": Is there an easy way to avoid "publisher...published"?

  Tweaked to mention Macfadden earlier -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the contents mostly written by the publisher's staff writers": Similarly, "written...writers"?

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "An arrangement was set up by Macfadden with Walter Hutchinson": My preference would be "Macfadden set up an arrangement with..." but not a big deal.

  Done; you're right -- there's no need for passive there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ghost Stories did occasionally print contributions from outside writers": Similarly, not sure we need "did" here; I think "Ghost stories occasionally printed..." has the same effect, but again not a big deal and I can see why "did" might be wanted. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done.Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• No concerns reliability-wise given it's pretty well Mike Ashley, Mike Ashley, Mike Ashley... ;-)

  Yep. Not sure if I ever mentioned this, but I found out a few years ago that he lives near my sister in Kent, so I met him for lunch when I was in the UK. I doubt he has many fans, but I'm one of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Formatting-wise:
  • I think you should remove the italics around the chapter titles where you have them and let the template make them consistently in inverted commas only.

    Done. I did it that way since they're magazine titles as well as chapter titles, but they're not actually italicized in the book headings so I think it's better to remove them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we get an OCLC for Hersey?

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose we should link the notable authors (e.g. Ashley) on first use.

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The exact same page numbers in both the citations (footnotes) and the chapter/book references seems redundant but not a show-stopper...

    The problem is that if I don't use the page numbers in the reference section I only have the chapter title; is that considered sufficient? It seems politer to give the reader the pointer to the chapter itself. In this case the page range is so short that I didn't distinguish pages for the footnotes, but in a longer chapter I'd be pointing at sub-page-ranges. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, I think. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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