Talk:The Chameleon (magazine)

The Chameleon (magazine) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 5, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chameleon (magazine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 15:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poetic and concise article surely up to GA standards. Will be back with comments-slash-nitpicks. Vaticidalprophet 15:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a few quibbles, mainly in the "Content" section. Though I recognize this is likely in part a limitation of the sources, the section is currently rather short and choppy in its paragraphs; if they can't be expanded, they could be consolidated. Regarding the mention upfront of anonymous authors, for instance -- we know from later in the section that at least one of the anonymous authors is now named. Do we know so for any others? In lieu of the single-sentence paragraph we have there now, it may be possible to give an expanded description of which anonyms we've since traced to people, and otherwise to at least mention that we now know John Francis Bloxam (who has an article, if a stub, and in turn deserves a link) wrote "The Priest and the Acolyte". It also seems worthwhile to contextualize who Bloxam was a bit in the article in addition to the link, as he's a fairly obscure figure. I also suggest seeing if the section flows better with the current choppy paragraphs on "works written by neither Wilde nor Bloxam" consolidated into a single paragraph. Vaticidalprophet 04:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on this review. I take "poetic and concise" as a high compliment indeed!

Unfortunately, from my reading on the topic I'm not aware of any of the other anonymous authors having been identified. But I've moved the information about the authorship of "The Priest and the Acolyte" up to that first paragraph, and added a bit more detail about the mistaken authorship issue which is alluded to in the introduction.

Bloxam is linked in the introduction (and the infobox), but I'm definitely not opposed to having another link in the body if you think that would help. For now I've updated the mention in the "Contents" section to restate Bloxam's role as editor - I'm hoping that would help jog the reader's memory, and serve as a hint that they can scroll up to get more info on him? I like your suggestion of adding some more contextual info on Bloxam - I added another sentence (in the "Publication history" section) mentioning that this was the last time he would publish any writing, and that he spent the rest of his life in the clergy.

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Let me know what you think of the latest version, and whether you have any further suggestions/comments. Colin M (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt and thorough response! :) With regards to linking -- there's a fair amount of disagreement here lately regarding MOS compliance, reader accessibility, etc. I take the stance of erring on the side of linking, due to mobile readers. Around 60% (per latest WMF studies) of readers are on mobile, where the current format is one of collapsed sections and readers only seeing the ones they specifically open; there's also the additional consideration that thanks to the practice of linking to subsections and the like, we can't be certain any given reader is starting from the beginning rather than the middle. I'd lean towards a link in the body to serve a broader variety of readers. Otherwise, things are looking pretty good. Vaticidalprophet 04:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally with you there (I actually voiced support for the recent proposed wording change in the MoS to relax the guidelines around repeated wikilinks). I added a wikilink for Bloxam in the "Contents" section. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Colin M (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No GA-level concerns, happy to pass :) Vaticidalprophet 04:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, my first GA! Thanks again for the review. Colin M (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]