Talk:Annual Reviews (publisher)

Notability of individual journals

User:Lilac Soul recently created a series of redirects here, both redirecting red links and overwriting existing stubs on individual Annual Review publications. I think that individual AR journals are notable and if stubbed (ex. [1]) should not be redirected. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think having an individual article on each of them is overkill, when they can so easily be grouped into a single article. Of course, it one of the reviews is particularly notable on its own, it could have its own article as well, in which case we would use something like {{main|Annual Review of NOTABLE}}. However, please note that there only existed one article which I overwrote with a redirect - and as can be seen from the diff it contained very little information. I will, however, add it to this article. I think that if we agree that (at least the majority of) these articles belong in a single article, then this article should be expanded a bit and each individual journal should have its own section in this article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 07:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not the least overkill--they are almost uniformly among the very most cited journals in their disciplines, and in most cases also the pioneer review journals. I apologize for not doing this myself, for I meant to several months ago. How do you propose we settle it--I suggest,Piotrus, that you do a really good article on the one on your subject as an example, which I believe is in fact sociology, and we go on slowly from there. It is never a good idea to do a large number of changes of this sort at once without prior discussion. That's what got the episodes and character arbitrations started. Rather than go that route, lets take them one at a time. if any are proposed for deletion, I will of course strongly defend them--I understand their importance. DGG (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the ISI rankings, and I'll of course have to agree with you now - they are all notable for individual articles. However, as they didn't exist already, redirecting to this article was a good place to start. And I still think that if they're all going to be three-line stubs, it would still be better to sort them all into one article, like this one. But if we can take the time to write proper articles on them, then yes, let's have articles on them all. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 07:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as the substubs are completely merged here, the issue is not big; and we all agree that if they are expanded to something more than a substub they can be split off - so I think the issue is resolved. I'd love to expand on the sociological one, but - as is often the case with journals (or individual publications) - there is indeed not that much material about them. PS. Out of curiosity: how can one check the ISI rankings? Its a skill I wanted to master for some time :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They're on their website at [2] - but you can also go here. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Hi, I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence for Annual Reviews, Elysia. While a lot of my bandwidth has been focused on improving content on Wikipedia using their publications, I received feedback on my talk page that this article reads like spam and makes Annual Reviews look less than credible. I have done a rewrite of the page in my sandbox here, and am inviting comments from other editors given my conflict of interest in this area.

Some advantages of the new version:

1. Everything is cited, which would address the 11 year old maintenance tag on this article
2. This is up-to-date. The current version says AR publishes 46 titles, but it's now up to 51 titles, for example. IP fixed this since my edit request. Elysia (AR) (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
3. I've added some media to help illustrate the article
4. The current article is weighted towards recentism. I've added in more of the organization's history to provide a fuller view
5. I think the table of journal titles is more useful than the list, as it can be sorted however the reader likes--by oldest, newest, or alphabetical.
6. More in line with WP standards. For example, right now novel information is presented in the lead that is not in the body of the article.
7. Inaccuracies and omissions fixed. Article says In 2017 and 2018, the Annual Review of Public Health was available without subscription; the 2019 volume requires a subscription but that is not true, all volumes of ARPH (and four other journals) are readable without a subscription. Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I will not edit this article directly, so my hope is that consensus for some or all of the new version will emerge and someone else will move the new content in. Happy to hear your thoughts on the matter, and thank you for your time. Elysia (AR) (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb saw you just made several edits, calling your attention to this outstanding request in case you have time to look over it. Elysia (AR) (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll take deeper look at it later. Very briefly, I find the draft to be more promotional/ad-like than the current version, which traces back to a version written by DGG (talk · contribs) in 2006. Personally, I never agreed with the criticism that the current version was promotional to start with. However, your version is in general better written and more in depth, so it's just a matter of tweaking and pruning things here and there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Headbomb. I'd be happy to revise specific phrases or words that strike you as promotional. Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb hey, happy new year! Just wondering if you had time to look over in more depth/could point out specific areas you think should be changed. Thanks, Elysia (AR) (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And I shall look also. I remember back in 2006 asking AR to consider giving WP editors a license to access their reviews. They laughed at me. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

DGG thank you! I think a lot of organizations have changed their opinion of Wikipedia since 2006. Annual Reviews has since made all their content available to editors through the Wikipedia Library. Looking forward to reading more of your thoughts on the draft. Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @DGG:@Headbomb: are you still reviewing this request, or would you like a new editor to assess the changes? Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: life is a bit hectic right now, so feel free to review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

as Headbomb said, life is hectic. In fact, i forgot about this completely. If I don't get there in a week, I'll say so. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Z1720 I have put this back in the unanswered edit request queue. When I checked Category:Requested edits, I expected it to be first in the queue, but now it's not in there at all (even after I forced refresh of the page). Is there a way to add a date to an edit request template or some other method of reinserting this request into the queue? Thanks, Elysia (AR) (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

never mind, it's there, but now it's very last in the queue as if I had made the edit request today and not in October. Elysia (AR) (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, a bot updates the list and it takes up to an hour for the page to update. It looks like it is now in the queue. I do not know how to move the date of a request. I will assess this as soon as I can (I have two other requests that I need to finish first). If I don't respond to this in a week can you ping me again? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elysia (AR):I am starting this review of the article. Since there are multiple sections, it might take me a few days to complete. I will start with the body of the article and review the lede and infobox at the end. I encourage you to comment and ask questions as I complete the review.

History section: The proposed text goes into extraneous detail and almost reads as WP:PROMO. I don't think we need the various sections, as we can condense it down to a couple of paragraphs. I have posted an alternative text below. Please read it and let me know if you think something is wrong or missing. Also, journal articles are used as sources, which is great, but I can't find the information because specific page numbers were not provided. After each sentence below I have a possible source in brackets. Can you replace the # symbol with the specific page number where I can find the information? I wrote "source needed" if I was unsure about the source.

Annual Review was first published as Annual Review of Biochemistry in 1932.(Founder & History website) J. Murray Luck created the journal to disseminate critical reviews of biochemistry research.("Confessions of a Biochemist" page #) Stanford University Press published the journal on a three-year contract, with financial assistance from the Chemical Foundation.("A 50-Year History of Annual Reviews Inc" page #) Stanford University gave the journal rent-free office space (where?) in 1931 for editorial and business operations.("Confessions of a Biochemist" page #) At the end of the contract, the advisory committee of the journal assumed a legal identity as the journal's publisher and kept Stanford University Press as the printer.(source needed) On December 12, 1934, they submitted articles of incorporation with the California Secretary of State to create Annual Review of Biochemistry, Ltd.("Confessions of a Biochemist" page #) In February 1938, the company changed its name to Annual Reviews, Inc.("Confessions of a Biochemist" page #)

In 1939, Annual Reviews and the American Physiological Society collaborated to create a new journal called the Annual Review of Physiology.(source needed) A third journal, the Annual Review of Microbiology, was created in 1947. (was this also a collaboration between AR and APS?)(source needed) The increased volume of printing was not feasible for Stanford University Press, so printing was contracted out to the George Banta Company.(source needed) In the 1950s, titles in medicine, psychology, plant physiology, physical chemistry, nuclear and particle science, and entomology were added.(source needed) Stanford University struggled with limited space on their campus so Annual Reviews constructed a new office building in Palo Alto, California.(what year?)(source needed) Luck worked for Annual Reviews until his retirement from the editor-in-chief position in 1968.("Annual Reviews and Dr. J Murray Luck" page #)

I did not include information about Knowable Magazine because I do not think it is notable. The announcement of the magazine was a press release and the two award it has won are non-notable.

I suggest that you add page numbers to the rest of the references in your draft. This will speed up the reviewing process. Please ping me when this is complete and I will continue. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, Hi, thanks for reviewing so far. Regarding your "source needed" notes, similar to the featured articles I've authored, I don't include a citation after every single sentence if multiple, consecutive sentences are drawn from the same source material. Per WP:CITEFOOT, The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text.

It's unclear to me which parts are promotional, could you point them out? I'm fine with condensing the content, but this is an organization that is nearly 100 years old. A balanced article would avoid recentism, which was my aim in having a history section.

As for Knowable, the question of whether it merits a standalone article would be one of notability. I think the question of whether it merits mention in the article Annual Reviews is one of due and undue weight. Since Knowable isn't that old, I agree, there shouldn't be much coverage of it. It isn't what Annual Reviews is known for. However, considering that the article lists every single journal that has been published by Annual Reviews, I think it makes sense to also list that it publishes a science journalism webzine. Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elysia (AR) I agree that not every sentence needs a citation. Since page numbers for journal articles were not provided in your draft, I was unsure which page each sentence is cited to. I will group the references and use proper formatting when it is posted to the article.

I think I over-emphasised the promotional language concern. I am more concerned that, in your draft, some parts went into too much detail and went off-topic. For example, I thought the information of Luck designing the course and not finding research was too long. In my proposed section above I reduced that prose and removed the info I thought was off-topic. Is there any information that I removed that you think needs to be put back in?

I removed the last paragraph in "Expansion to other disciplines" because it felt like a list of accomplishments instead of a history of the publisher. Is there information about why/how these journals were created? Any controversy about their creation?

I agree that a balanced article would avoid recentism, but I think your draft had the opposite problem: It gives lots of information about pre-1968 events but very few post-1968 events. Are there any controversies or changes during this time period? A change in CEO or senior executive members?

For Knowable magazine, I am OK with including information about its publication if it is notable. Is there a secondary source that has reviewed the magazine, or an announcement about its creation that isn't a press release from Annual Reviews?

Thanks for reading my response. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, regarding Knowable, I could add a sentence to state that its articles have been republished in The Atlantic, Washington Post, and BBC Future. Elysia (AR) (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Elysia (AR) I don't consider publication in other locations notable. Instead, I am looking for a source independent of Annual Reviews that talks about the magazine. Examples can include a profile of the magazine, a review of their work or an announcement of their publication (that is not a press release or an ad). The magazine doesn't need to be the main topic of the source, just independent from the publisher. Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, just want to make sure we're on the same page here, on WP:N On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. I'm not trying to make the argument that Knowable is notable and warrants its own article. I'm saying it's a part of the history of Annual Reviews, as are all the journals it has published. Furthermore, Knowable is already in the article in its current form, added by an editor who wasn't me. Elysia (AR) (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Elysia (AR) I think I might be using the word "notable" incorrectly, so I apoligise. Let me try to rephrase what I'm trying to say: Annual Reviews has (I think) 51 journals (plus one that doesn't publish anymore? Sorry if I got that number wrong.) Writing a sentence about the creation of every single journal in the history section would make the history section too large. Therefore, we are making decisions on what is important enough to include in the history section, or what I called "notable" above. In other words, why are we devoting a sentence or two to the creation of Knowable magazine but not one of the other journals? The answer to that question is what makes the magazine "notable" and important enough to include in the history section. If we don't have a good answer to that question, I will remove it for now until we can show why it is important enough to talk about. If another source, independent of Annual Review, thinks this magazine is important and talks about it, then Knowable magazine will probably be included in the article. However, the source has to talk about the magazine, not reprint their material.

As for the fact that it's already in the article, when I do large revamps like this request I will also look at information already in the article and remove things that are unnecessary. I'm asking clarification about this because it was part of the draft and I don't want to remove things like this if there's a better source. I like questions like this, so please keep asking for clarifications. Z1720 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a proponent of including Knowable Magazine in a more notable manor within this article; however, I believe that it may be most appropriate as a separate Wikipedia page. I started writing an article about Knowable Magazine in my Sandbox. The way in which Knowable Magazine incorporates and interprets review articles supports a claim to having its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchatzieMicah (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Addressing comments above

Okay, trying to organize this so I can go through point by point, pulling in some reviewer remarks from above. I've made edits to my sandbox, marking removed text with strikethroughs and marking added text with highlights. (User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Reviews)

• The proposed text goes into extraneous detail and almost reads as WP:PROMO
  • Stripped down
• I did not include information about Knowable Magazine because I do not think it is notable.
  • Stripped down to one sentence acknowledging Knowable exists in the body; removed from the lead. I think a specific mention of Knowable in the history section is warranted because it is a "first" for the organization.
• I can't find the information because specific page numbers were not provided.
  • page #s added (some of the citations that are to journals are to the preface that consists of one page, therefore not all journal citations will have page #)
• I removed the last paragraph in "Expansion to other disciplines" because it felt like a list of accomplishments instead of a history of the publisher. Is there information about why/how these journals were created? Any controversy about their creation?
  • My aim was to roughly describe the line graph in this section, which shows that the rate of creation for new journals has been increasing. I think the goal of this paragraph is to provide scope of their publications over time. In a similar vein, I have moved Knowable from its subection to this paragraph, and added its other non-journal publications.
• I agree that a balanced article would avoid recentism, but I think your draft had the opposite problem: It gives lots of information about pre-1968 events but very few post-1968 events. Are there any controversies or changes during this time period? A change in CEO or senior executive members?
  • I moved the list of presidents up and changed it from a bulleted list format to prose. I also brought in a sentence from the format section about the inception of electronic publishing in 1996.
• Annual Reviews constructed a new office building in Palo Alto, California.(what year?)
  • Year added

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysia (AR) (talk • contribs) 17:04, February 8, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elysia (AR), thanks for addressing the concerns above. Can you create a copy that has the exact text you want to add to the article (no strikethroughs, no highlighting)? This makes it easier to assess and copy into the article. Once this is finished, can you ping me and I will take a look? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, yep, removed markup from sandbox User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Reviews. Thanks! Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Elysia (AR) I added the Early history to the article with some copyediting (mostly to tighten up the language). Please read through what I posted and let me know if there are any concerns. I am very concerned that it relies upon primary sources, and would appreciate it if we could find a secondary source to support this section.

As for the "Expansion to other disciplines": This section relies a lot on primary sources. Articles on Wikipedia should be based on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCE). Furthermore, WP:PROMO says, "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." When I talked about notability in the above section, I was trying to avoid violating Wikipedia's PROMO policy and hoping secondary sources would be used in the latest draft. I was lenient for the "Early history" section because it happened long ago and I did not see how this promotes the company. However, more recent developments, such as Knowable Magazine, the number of reviews published by AR and special publications, need secondary sources to avoid PROMO. The source for Knowable Magazine is a press release from Annual Review and I cannot use it. I cannot use the actual article as a source to say AR published "Intelligence and Affectivity". You need to find reliable, independent sources before I can add this kind of information to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, thanks for moving some work over! I think your revisions look good. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities so long as

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

With regards to the Intelligence and Affectivity article, that is not a citation to the publication itself. It is a third-party review of the publication in Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, which is not affiliated with AR. Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see that we have a disagreement about if and how the primary sources in the draft should be included in the article. I will stop my assessment here and I will keep this edit request open so others can assess the request. Editors do not need to consult or ping me before adding material. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedian-in-Residence

Hello, I wanted to let people working on this know that I have recently replaced Elysia as the Wikipedian-in-residence for the publisher Annual Reviews. I was formerly the Wikipedian-in-residence at the Science History Institute, under my personal username User:Mary Mark Ockerbloom. I am using an secondary username for this project to make outcome tracking easier.

As part of my new job I've been asked to take responsibility for following up with this review process. I see that the article is nearing the top of the queue; I will take a look at it in the next day or so and familiarize myself with what has been done. It's likely I'll make some edits to the draft in the process -- if nothing else, I see the paragraphs are very long and could be broken into more readable chunks. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

At present I am going through the article and looking for independent sources that can be cited. I may also add a column to the table of journals to indicate the ones that are currently released as open source. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering if it would be worth while to add past titles (in addition to the current title) in the table, in the case of reviews whose title has changed over time. What do people think? MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I've gone ahead and added this information. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi MaryMO (AR), I am currently working through the backlog at CAT:EDITREQ, could you please update me with the current status of this request on your end? Especially with regards to User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Reviews? Thanks. JBchrch talk 16:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi JBchrch, From my point of view, the proposed replacement page User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Reviews is stable and ready to roll out if you are happy with it. The main issue when I came on board seemed to be lack of independent sources, and I've added a substantial number of those. if you have other suggestions or concerns, just let me know. Best wishes, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hi JBchrch I'm trying to better understand the request review process. For the reviewer, I suspect the appropriate thing would be to credit both myself and Elysia since we were both involved in rewriting the page. Would this be appropriate formatting for a mandatory copyright attribution for 2 people? Implementing talk page edit requested by [[Special:Contributions/Elysia (AR)|Elysia (AR)]] and [[Special:Contributions/MaryMO (AR)|MaryMO (AR)]]. Inquiring minds, thank you, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Z1720, JBchrch, Headbomb, DGG : I'm taking the liberty of tagging you all, since you helped with previous versions of this draft. It's now been on the queue since October 2020. I took over from Elysia in May 2021. Since then, the original Wikipedia page for Annual Reviews (publisher) has become even farther out of date. The most recent change, which I've updated on this draft page and on Wikidata today, is that Annual Reviews is no longer based in Palo Alto. They've moved their physical offices to San Mateo, California. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help move this forward. Many thanks, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless someone else gets there before me, I shall make the change myself this week, using the information you have supplied. As I understand it, that does not affect the copyright--it remains in me, because I shall word it and organize it as I think best. Copyright exists in the wording of material, not the information used for the purpose. To give intellectual credit for supplying the information, I will add an appropriate note on the talk page. This is more than a technical evasion; I expect to make some significant changes in your version. I shall omit the names of the editors, which best belong on the individual articles, I shall probably not include the names of the board of directors. If the table then looks sufficiently compact, I'll keep it as a table, otherwise as a list. Could you please add information for which other journals rank first in their category. I shall indicate this, but probably not include the impact factor. I'm doing this as an ordinary editor, in accord with the way I write articles are written for other scientific articles and journals, and which I think is close to the gneral style. -I do not like to use tables if it can be avoided,; the main reason is when it needs to be sorted , and Idon't consider the need for sorting by date necessary. (and sorting by editor name has no purpose) Any other non-coi editor is of course welcome to change anything I have ddne, in hte usual way.

Incidentally, in makling requested changes, I do not bother with the queue and the entire formal procedure, which I consider a ponderous nuisance. If someone asks me, and it's in my special field, and I'm interested enough, I do it as I think best. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hi DGG, Here is the information you asked for. The following journals were ranked first in at least one category as of 2021: Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Annual Review of Entomology, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, Annual Review of Marine Science, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease, Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Annual Review of Plant Biology, Annual Review of Psychology, Annual Review of Resource Economics.

Hi DGG,

• I do think it's interesting to be able to see all of the lead editors for the different journals in one place; to get this information otherwise you'd have to individually look them up or write a complicated Wikidata search query. I also think it's interesting to be able to sort by date and see when the journals were added, as that gives a historical perspective on how Annual Reviews has expanded into different fields over time, and when there have been "bursts" of expansion. Thanks for getting involved in this one! MaryMO (AR) (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Moving right along

MaryMO (AR) I just saw this edit request at the top of the edit request queue. I reviewed the current article and history, and think the new version is better, but I'd remove the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from the lead. Including print and online subscription options is too promotional, and including the organizational structure and leadership info so prominently in the lead is not very relevant to the average reader. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Timtempleton, thanks for jumping in! I've broken up your original paragraph so I can check these off as I go and add notes.

Y I've removed paragraphs 3 and 4 but folded in two sentences based on that info. The Subscribe to open model is an important publishing initiative, so I kept that sentence. I summarized the editorial structure into one sentence. It helps to explain how Annual Reviews manages to publish 51 journals. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with DGG that having the editors' names in the sortable table is unnecessary, and indeed, it doesn't work, since there are multiple names in the cells. Consider instead that since the editors have their articles, you could remove their names, and add each of them to a new category: Annual Reviews editors. I agree with your reasoning about how being able to sort by start date shows the expansion of the journals into different fields. I think the long list overpowers the article, and would like to see how making it a sortable list of just the titles and years changes it. I'd even consider collapsing it, by default.

Y I've created "Category:Annual Reviews (publisher) editors" as suggested. The name is a little uglier than the one you proposed but it parallels the pattern of "Category:x (journal) editors" and it will hopefully keep editors from every journal that starts with "Annual Review of" from being dumped into the category. I've taken the editor names out of the table as requested. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Lastly, I agree that the board members' section is also a bit much, and is not only self-serving, but can be problematic to keep up to date with proper sourcing. We're getting there though. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you'd prefer to see there, so I'll leave that to you? Thanks again, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Y I'm going to assume that you'd like the list of board members to be removed, so I'm going ahead and doing that. I'll leave it to you if you want other related modifications. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Lists of editorial board members are indeed a nono, see WP:JWG. Only in exceptional cases do we mention board members (mainly if there are independent sources documenting the involvement of a board member with the journal). On a side note, I noticed that you put the category "Annual Review editors" on dozens of bios. I checked one (Rudi Balling) and that article does not mention AR at all. Generally we only add a category if the article text supports this. --Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• The suggestion above was to replace the list of editors on the Annual Reviews page with a category. So I'm adding the category. Once that's in place I can go back and work from the category list to add the bio information to the relevant pages. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's doing things backwards. I routinely remove unsourced categorizations and so do others, which would wreak havoc with your plans... --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @MaryMO (AR): I got your email. I'm looking at this with fresh eyes. I think your sandbox version might be a bit too long, but others who work with the journals and understand the peer review process would be better suited to comment. I kind of like the more compact listing of titles in the current version, versus a long column with lots of whitespace to the right (at least that's how it appears on my wide monitor). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Y Hi Timtempleton, the table spacing seems to be driven by the headings, See what you think now. All the best, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@MaryMO (AR): That isn't it - the spatial efficiency comes more from having the titles in multiple columns versus a single column. I'm reconsidering my agreement with your desire to to allow the titles to be sortable by date, with the layout implications in mind. I don't think giving a handful of interested readers the ability to sort by year makes up for the large amount of open space that everyone else sees. And I think longer articles deter casual readers, so brevity and compactness are your friends. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton:, I'm not sure what's happening when you display the page; I don't see a large amount of open space around the table as you've described with my computer/browser. For me, the table width is the same as the preceding text areas and the following references section. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The long entry for Annual Review of Biophysics on User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Reviews stretches the entire width of my screen, and the rest of the titles are short, so there's a big gap. Plus I have a wide monitor. Try Firefox 92.0 if that's not the browser you're using. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I've also got Firefox 92.0, using a Macbook with Big Sur and a large auxiliary monitor. Both look fine. If there's a problem with how the Wikipedia interface is formatting tables for you, I'd suggest reporting it to the developers. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton The formatting of the article seems perfectly fine on my end, spacing-wise. RFZYNSPY ^talk 00:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@RFZYNSPY: Are we looking at the same thing? User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Reviews#List of journals? Only three titles even span more than halfway; the rest of them are all bunched to the left,leaving large amounts of blank space to the right of the titles. I like the current title layout more. Annual Reviews (publisher)#List of titles TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I was under the impression there was an egregious formatting error or that something broke the table. That was my mistake. If we are both seeing the same thing, then yes I do agree that the old listed layout is better than the new tabled one. Both are good enough but the old listed layout is cleaner and allows more legibility to individual entries (the journals), which is important because a great deal of them are wikilinked to their own articles. RFZYNSPY ^talk 21:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: if table layout is what's holding this up, then I'm okay with it being changed and sending this out, although I still prefer the sortable version on the draft. Thanks again for your time and efforts, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Y I have changed User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Reviews so that the list of journal titles uses the list format preferred by reviewers rather than a sortable table. (This does seriously extend the table of contents.) I also added a couple of titles that were missing in the currently released version in Article space. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to release

The draft User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Reviews has been under edit request review for over a year. DGG, Z1720, JBchrch, Headbomb, Timtempleton: you have all given useful feedback to improve this page, for which I thank you. I'd like to propose that if no one raises further concerns in the next couple of weeks, I move the draft out to article space. I am confident that editors there will bring forward any issues that they see, and I'm sure that you'd all be happy to see this one off the request list before the end of 2021. Wishing you all the best, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

go ahead--if I have any other changes I'll make them later. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC) �

Y DGG, given your permission as the original author of the page, I have updated the article and the request template. Many thanks and happy holidays, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Annual Reviews(publisher)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Annual Reviews(publisher) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#Annual Reviews(publisher) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)