Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ace Books/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKiernan via FACBot (talk) 6:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [1].

Ace Books[edit]

Notified: Mike Christie, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Companies, WikiProject Science Fiction

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has: A tag of written like an advertisement. Whole paragraphs without citations. A general shortage of citations and prose issues. Some unrealiable sources. Crispulop (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the moment, please keep discussion and comments at Talk:Ace Books#FA article problems. We generally allow about two weeks for discussion on the article talk page and for article improvement before continuing with or starting a review here. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have time to work on this over the next couple of weeks. I'll comment at the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about posting it here immediately. Overlooked a step in the procedures. Crispulop (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think everything is now cited. Let me know what else needs to be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issues I noted are solved. I however have no experience in FAR, maybe DrKiernan would like to have a look at it. Crispulop (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this off hold for any further comments/declarations. If there aren't any fairly soon, I'll close this as a keep. DrKiernan (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern about the lead- namely that it does not seem to adequately summarize the article in its 5 sentences. It stops covering "History" at about 1963, and doesn't mention at all that "Ace" is now the SFF division/imprint for Penguin, rather than an independent company- and that it hasn't been one since 1972.
The second two paragraphs of the lead were split into a section called "Importance" by another editor; I've removed that section title so the lead is now longer. How does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally: the "Ace nomenclature" section talks about it like it's a current thing, rather than a system that ended in 1968.
Not sure I agree here -- it's all in past tense, except "the following is a list" which has to be in present tense. Can you be more specific? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References are a mess: using two different date formats (yyyy-mm-dd, Month dd, yyyy); quite a lot of the references have no publisher; ref 42 is pretty bare; ref 52 has ALLCAPS; some of the references with publishers are still malformed: see "sf-encyclopedia.com" rather than "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" (Third/Online edition, as you will) --Pres N 05:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on cleaning these up; might take me a week or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see Indopug has already done a lot of ref cleanup; thank you! I have done a couple more bits and pieces, and don't see much left to do. @PresN: I've updated the SFE references to use "Science Fiction Encyclopedia" as the title, as that's part of what appears in the pages' title text. I don't think it's necessary to say "Online" since it's obviously a web reference. Can you point out anything else that needs fixing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get this ping; note that you have to have a ~~~~ in the same edit as the username reference for it to work. Anyways:

Lead looks better.
My problem with the nomenclature section is the first sentence, which gets the section off on the wrong foot- "Ace titles have had two main types of serial numbers". This reads as "They have in the past, and still do". Tweaking that makes my concerns go away- I've gone ahead and done so, though feel free to change it if you want.
Refs look good now, thanks. You don't need "Online" for the SFE refs, I was just making a nod to the fact that SFE is technically the third edition of the encyclopedia (1st-1979, 2nd-1993, 3rd-online edition), and you're citing the 2nd edition elsewhere, but since it's more an online website than an "edition" of a book, it can be ignored.

At this point, all of my concerns are addressed, so if DrKiernan was waiting on me, you can go ahead and close. --Pres N 04:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKiernan (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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