==GA Review== 

 :This review is transcluded from Talk:Miracle Science and Fantasy Stories/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 

 Reviewer:   ·   

  

  
 ===== images ===== 

 * I didn't ask this on the other reviews but how do we tell when copyright hasn't been renewed for a specific work? Does the LOC track that? Is there some database somewhere which records it?  

 ===== style/layout ===== 

 * I won't ask you to make a "contents" section, but I think the flow of the article would be much improvded by moving some of the issue details out of the second paragraph. Right now they're alongside statements about who wrote for the magazine, the artwork and the confusion over Douglas Dold's role. Are we mentioning Douglas's credit as the editor after the first sentence because it was the first issue some sources claimed he edited? The text doesn't make this clear to me. Near as I can tell we talk roughly about publication history for the first half of the paragraph and the quality of the fiction (and who wrote it) for the second half. But I had to read the paragraph twice to get that division.  

 ===== content ===== 

 * "The second issue was dated June−July 1931. It proved to be the last: Elliott Dold fell ill and was unable to continue working on the magazine." I feel this could be re-worked to flow better. Also I have the same question as I did for that FAC, why is there a colon here? 
 * "The fiction" we say this twice, presumably referring to the content of the magazine. Were there non-fiction stories published? Other features? 
 * "Douglas Dold contributed the lead novel to the first isuse, and his brother..." Instead of "his brother" maybe say "Elliott" 
 * "The fiction included stories by Victor Rousseau, John Miller Gregory." looks like this was a list of three that got cut short. 
 * "Both issues were in pulp format..." "printed in" still works here, even though it's part of a litany and "144 pages long" would break the rhythm ) 

 ===== references ===== 

 * we note Pulpwood Editor in the text as a source for a claim. Are we relaying another source's reading of that or do we want to cite it directly? 
 * How much of the DeVore cite can be broken up and used for specific claims? The vast majority of the article is cited to that 3 page stretch and each citation supports very different claims. 
 * The lede says the fiction was unremarkable. The body says it was "poor". What, specifically, does DeVore say, as he appears to be our cite for this. 

 ===== other sources ===== 

 You got me on this one. I've only found 2 other sources so far.  

 * Science-fiction, the Early Years (Bleiler & Bleiler, ISBN 0873384164) 
 ** p. 97 talks about Douglas Dold, though doesn't offer much detail. 
 ** p. 98 talks about Elliott a bit and also notes that it is likely they collaborated on a story, though the wording in the text indicates this is a bit 2nd hand 
 * The Shudder Pulps: A History of the Weird Menace Magazines of the 1930s by Robert Kenneth Jones (ISBN 1434486249) 
 ** pp. 68-69 gives some background detail on Hershey, though nothing on Miracle directly aside from a  trivial mention.  
 ** If you wanted an distinct cite for the "thrill book" publication, that's in there. 

 Overall I think these should be easy fixes. I've convinced myself that you've covered the preponderance of sources out there and that given those limitations this is about as good as the article is going to get. I think adding at least the Bleiler book for some context on the Dold brothers is worthwhile. Whether you choose to cite The Shudder Pulps on Hershey is up to you. I think once my questions about sourcing and my comments on copyediting are resolved I can pass this. Thanks!