Wikipedia:Peer review/Ace Books/archive1

I'd appreciate any feedback. I do have two particular questions: 1. Have I overdone the footnotes and references? Seems to me I had a lot of information to source, and I wanted to source it all. But it's led to a lot of footnotes, particularly in the list of editors. 2. Is the history unbalanced? I know more about the 1950-1972 period, and so there's more data about that. Do I need to get or request some more information about Ace's later history?

Thanks for any comments. Mike Christie 03:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've done a good job collecting all that information on such a specialised topic. First of all the lead is a bit short, see WP:LEAD for some suggestions. I don't think it'd hurt to flesh out all the sections a bit more, I was pretty curious about what Ace is still publishing, what are some recent popular Ace releases? Have you found any information on the corporate side of things, was the publisher financially successful, how many books did they sell a year, what were the biggest selling titles?--Peta 10:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments; I will follow up and post a note here when I've made the updates.Mike Christie 11:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]