Talk:Treats!/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this; I'll add comments below as I go through the article. It might take me a day or so to finish; I don't have much time tonight.

~~There is some unnecessary capitalization; job names like "art director" and "editor" are not usually capitalized in running text; nor is "Issue".~~
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~At one point the article says it has been published twice a year in each of three years, for a total of six issues; but later an issue 7 is mentioned.~~
- It is not yet possible to say how many issues will be published in 2014 without a WP:CRYSTAL. If 2014 again has only 2 issues, I will provide similar citations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough; I phrased that poorly. I really just meant that the article should say somewhere that there have been seven issues to date. On reflection I don't think even this is necessary so I'm striking the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Section title "Corporate info": I don't think "information" should be abbreviated~~
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine isn't located on La Brea Avenue; the editorial offices are. Actually I'd suggest moving this information to a bibliographic details section at the end, where you can include editorial office address, names of the editorial staff (where they're not named in the text above), price, number of pages, size (sounds like it's a slick), and volume numeration.
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Have there been any overseas editions?~~
- No sources that I have seen mention alternative editions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the description gives essentially the same description of the magazine from five different sources. I think at least a couple of these can be cut as not giving the reader any new information. If you're looking for external sources describing the article, I think you can use a quote from Husni in the Daily Beast article; that's fairly thoughtful, specific, and doesn't exactly repeat the other descriptions. The detail about body hair also seems different enough to mention (from the same source).
The changes here look good. I like Husni's quotes but if you don't feel they're necessary that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The outtakes from photoshoots for his former employers serve as the featured content for this magazine": the source doesn't actually say this; it just describes the outtakes as part of the original idea for the magazine.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Currently (with a minor edit from me) the text says: "The magazine ostensibly presents much of the content that is considered too risqué for magazines such as Vogue, Elle and InStyle. Steve Shaw, the magazine's founder, had a nickname for the outtakes that pushed the borders too far: "treats". This nickname serves as the title for the magazine. The outtakes from photoshoots for his former employers serve as the inspiration for the featured content of this magazine". There are a couple of things I don't like about this: "ostensibly" doesn't seem the right word, and the sequence is a little choppy. How about: "According to Steve Shaw, the magazine's publisher, treats! was founded to present content that was too risqué for magazines such as Vogue, Elle and InStyle. Shaw's nickname for photos that could not be used because they pushed the borders too far was "treats", and he decided to use the nickname as the title for the magazine." Then you don't need the last sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Suggestion accepted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's still a requirement for US magazines to print audited information about their circulation at least once a year. This is just a suggestion, but if you have copies of the magazine, you should be able to include circulation figures.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't have copies of the magazine. I have inquired about a gratis subscription to make sure details in this article and the Emily Ratajkowski article are correct. (I have been successful at getting free software subscriptions in the past and have never tried a magazine). Not counting free basketball game admissions, I have gotten about a half dozen freebies for doing articles over the years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I never tried to get a free subscription with the only other magazine I have created from scratch (WSJ.), but this mag has a high digital subscriber ratio and I don't think it costs them anything to give me a free digital subscription.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  If they say no, you might ask them if they have audited circulation figures that can be sourced somewhere, either to a page in their magazine or to the auditor's website. But this isn't an issue for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie Please re-evaluate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just the suggested rewording above to look at now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike_Christie, I responded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good; I'll go ahead and pass this. Just FYI, if you want to specify when the price changed to $30, it appears it was issue four -- this image of issue three shows the cover price at $20, and this photo of issue 4 shows the price at $30. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebay is not really a WP:RS that I am comfortable with, even in this objective manner.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I wouldn't cite eBay. What I've done in similar situations is put a citation to the actual print issue of the magazine, even if I don't own that issue, if I can be confident that the issue contains what the citation claims. A photographic image of the cover, for example, is enough to make assertions about the cover without having it in front of me. I think this could be handled that way, if you wanted to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Mike Christie, I am not sure how to make that citation. What is suppose to be included? I have tried to make this change. Please have a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that works OK. When I have multiple bits of information for which I need to refer to different issues of a magazine, I sometimes say <ref>See the individual issues.</ref>, but what you've done works too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]