Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Magazine
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Southern Magazine, Little magazine
_(14779437801).jpg)
- ... that The Land We Love, a little magazine that merged into Southern Magazine, printed Civil War recollections, poetry, agricultural material, and many works by female authors? Source: see article--not one single source, but you know we produce quality.
Created by Drmies (talk) and Uncle G (talk). Nominated by Drmies (talk) at 21:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC).
- One paragraph by other authors. Special:Diff/1080856924 Uncle G (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Both articles were new enough when nominated, are long enough (>9,000 chars for little magazine, >4,500 chars for Southern Magazine), and have no other eligibility problems that I see. The claims in both are cited to reputable published works. I removed one piece of peacock language from the lead of Southern Magazine, and now the articles' treatment of their subjects is suitably neutral and non-promotional. I see no sign of outright plagiarism from online sources (though see below), and I'll have to AGF about the offline ones. The hook is supported by online sources cited in the articles and is interesting enough. The image is used in one of the articles, is clear at this resolution, and should be well out of copyright, but the license on the image's page at Commons should be clarified to explain why it can be known to be out of copyright. The QPQ reviews look good.
In Little magazine, the sentence about "penury" is a little closer to the source than I'd like in its phrasing; can this be paraphrased? The usage of "quarters of the 20th century" in the "southern US" section is very odd: it reads that "magazines from second quarter of the 20th century includ[e] Southwest Review (1915)", though surely 1915 falls in the first quarter of the century, and then the majority of titles in the list turn out to date to the 1950s and '60s, which are, of course, in the third quarter. Likewise, the following paragraph says that "The third quarter of the 20th century saw ..." and then lists periodicals dating to 1980 and 1997. This should be cleaned up.
In Southern Magazine, the second paragraph of the only body section includes the phrase "and rumors to that effect to continue long after Hill moved publication to Charlotte, North Carolina." The grammar here is garbled, and I can't make out what "rumors" continued (that the magazine was published in the North? Was that so damning that readers would spread "rumors" about it, and so difficult to verify that people wouldn't believe the changed masthead?). This should be clarified. In the quotation about how well the magazine paid its contributors, I doubt Hill originally gave the sum as "US$2"; that sort of editorial clarification isn't appropriate in a direct quotation.
Once this handful of relatively minor issues is addressed, the article should meet the DYK standard. Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Just making sure you saw this; looking forward to your response. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Bryan Rutherford, I had not; thank you. Uncle G, can you have a look, please? I may get to it today but I also have exams to grade. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Bryan Rutherford, I believe I have addressed all the matters you raised--except for two things. I cannot clarify whatever needs to be done on Commons; I don't know how those things really work, and the image has been there since 2015. Also, the "$US2" thing--I don't have access to the book, at least not to the text that has note 42 to page 123, but I assume my Uncle did--so it there is any editorial clarification, it's Hill's. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've updated the Commons page to clarify that the work is out of copyright due to its publication date. Together with the work y'all have done, this is now ready to run at DYK. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)