Talk:The Lady's Realm

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lady's Realm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a strong article on an underrepresented topic. Happy to take a look through. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Thirty-six volumes were produced, from November 1896 to October 1914 (a final volume may have been released in 1915)." Volumes, or issues? How many issues?

• The source (Versteeg, Thomas & Huddleston) says there were 36 volumes (there may have been a 37th). It's my understanding that each volume had numerous issues. I'm not sure if this source is reliable but they note the existence of 235 issues. It's difficult to find more precise information but I'll keep looking. Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "though University of Queensland researchers" How about "though Margaret Versteeg and colleagues, who produced an index of the fiction published in The Lady's Realm,"

• Done! Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Fiction, in the form of short stories and serialisations, were released" Singular/plural

• Fixed, changed to "was released". Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps say who Kathryn Ledbetter is? "Historian Kathryn Ledbetter" or something?

• Good point, have termed her "Victorian scholar". Her credentials can be found here. Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "In the 1900s, Lady's Realm '​s fashion editor Marian Pritchard regularly wrote of London and Paris fashions, recommending emerging trends and locations in which to purchase them." Could this sentence be rephrased?

• Not sure if it's much better but I have rewritten it. Let me know if you feel it still needs some work! Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The magazine maintained this blend of topics relatively consistently, though it made minor changes to the proportion to which it focused on different topics, for instance focusing less on the nobility and more on the lives of clergymen and governors general." In later years, presumably?

• Yes, in later years. Have made this clear in article. Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should note the issue number and date of the cover image in the caption? The image page says 1900, but is that correct?

• Added the number and year to the caption. From all I've been able to find, volume 9 was published in 1900/1901. [1]. I've added 1901 to the image page. Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "some scholars speculate that World War I may have been a cause" Are the "some scholars" just the three authors of the work you cite, or do they specifically mention that others do? If the former, I'm not keen; if the latter, that's OK.

• It's the former. I've specified who said this in the text. Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm surprised we don't have a category for magazines published in London (to mirror something like Category:Magazines published in New York), but we do have Category:Defunct magazines of the United Kingdom. You may also want to consider creating a category to mirror Category:Defunct women's magazines of the United States.

• That's a great idea! I'll work on something today. Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources are great, and the image is clearly PD in the US (though more information would not hurt). Plenty of hits on Google Scholar, but mostly just passing mentions. I've made some small fixes- please check that you're happy. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing! I believe I have addressed your concerns but let me know if there is anything else! Ruby 2010/2013 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy that this is ready for GA status, and so I'm promoting now. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)