Talk:Virginia Quarterly Review

Fair use rationale for Image:Virginia Quarterly Review Spring 2007.jpg

Image:Virginia Quarterly Review Spring 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Virginia Quarterly Review is not a leading literary publication

I am deleting "leading," as it suggests universal recognition. Just because someone says so in Slate doesn't make it so. Czarnykon (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicide of Managing Editor Kevin Morrissee

I have tried to provide a balanced and objective account of the suicide of Managing Editor Morrissee and its consequences for VQR, since prospective contributers and subscribers need to know about it. After the University of Virginia's review is finished, and they take whatever action, if any, they are going to take with regard to Mr. Genoways, this section will be updated. ElijahBosley (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A vandal logging in from an anonymous site has attempted to undo the account of why VQR has shut down, temporarily (if indeed it proves to be temporary). Initially changing "assertedly" to "allegedly" as that anonymous IP address did is no big deal. But removing the entire paragraph with multiple citations explaining the reason the magazine editor's future is in doubt, and the magazine's immediate future as well--is vandalism. That IP address will be reported to an administrator if the vandalism recurs.ElijahBosley (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Following repeated vandalism, a block on user's IP address and page protection, have been requested.ElijahBosley (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to readd the cancellation line. The article clearly says, "Last week, UVA announced the cancellation of VQR’s winter issue." (third paragraph on the article). Just because you think they may have overstated it doesn't matter; it's a reliable secondary source and should be included. If new information comes out that it's not canceled then the text can be removed, but as it stands, it's well sourced and should therefore be included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the article does indeed say that and I defer to a more experienced editor on that kind of judgement call. And as I said, I hope this version sticks. Thanks for your work on this.ElijahBosley (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'll keep an eye on the article in case further help is needed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post published today a new and fairly comprehensive, up-to-date article I'd like to add as a footnote called "At Virginia Quarterly Review, did Workplace Tension Take a Tragic Turn?". I am not messing with the text, merely buttressing what's there already with the best secondary source overview I've seen so far.ElijahBosley (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Added New York Times article "A Suicide Leaves Literary Journal and Its Editor in Limbo" published today to text and footnote.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 13:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a sentence in the lede referring to the suspended publication, with a link to the explanatory paragraph under Publication Status. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Genoways is now (late Sept. 2010) contacting members of the press to deliver his side of the VQR story (spin doctoring, in the view of his detractors). Since the more recent articles offer more complexity and also have updates such as the permanent departure of the wealthy volunteer-turned-editor in charge of fundraising, they should be included. So I have added a sentence and two footnotes.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 11:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The University has now slipped its Sept. 30 deadline for the audit report to the Board of Visitors, thus a decision is still weeks away, and VQR's fate and that of its staff unknown.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Same IP address up to its old tricks again. The IP locate feature gives a pretty good idea who that is (the address can be cross referenced against an address given in one of the newspaper articles). It would be prudent for that IP address to create an account on Wikiepdia, to read Wikipedia policies, and to discuss changes on this page--as has been three times stated already.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who changed the last line. But whatever, its current state is fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another cover story in the Hook on the VQR situation today. The article offers more facts, endeavoring to rebut what the author considers slanted recent news coverage. Rather than take sides, I am adding a sentence about the media coverage itself citing the article as an example of the back-and-forth developing in various news outlets.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

PS--and now the U Va audit report is available online, at least those portions of it that do not address the "personnel issues." I will update the paragraph with a link to it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link. Inline links to external sites aren't really done; it's awkward, confusing, and comes off a little spammy. If people want they can find the report with a simple search on their favorite engine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In a follow-up postto the Hook's "Web exclusive" describing and linking to the U VA audit report (see the comments under the article), reporter Dave McNair says portions of the audit called "management response" were written by U Va President Sullivan personally. So the report not merely audits past practices, it also states the U Va's President's decision about what to do in the future. There is also a recent Los Angels Times story to like effect. I am rewriting the last sentences of the paragraph to reflect that VQR's future is no longer "in limbo," even though details remain to be worked out.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Colored "suspended publication" in lede

In response to the reversion by HelloAnnyong the Wiki Manual of Style does not discourage use of color; in fact seems to encourage it so long as it is kept accessible to the color blind, using maroon and teal for instance. As an aesthetic matter, on the other hand, the red text seemed too garish, so I will leave it in black and white. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that policy encourages color coding per se. And I don't think this constitutes an appropriate use of "color coding". Optical fiber cable#Color coding is a much more appropriate use, as in that case the colors are significant to the various types of cables. Even the traffic light article doesn't use colors to indicate red vs. green lights; it does it with text. But it's not like this (or any other publication articles) have a red/green coding for whether or not it's actively in print. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So, and this is just a guess--you wouldn't go for text that was? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Finalist" for an award

If a self-congratulatory "finalist for" is pertinent at all in an encyclopedia, which is very doubtful, it belongs in the awards section above, not in the Morrissey suicide section. And this particular sentence is misleading since the source says four or five other magazines with exactly the same number of nominations also waited in line to see if they would win: VQ did not stand in second place behind the New Yorker.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Morrissey Suicide and Publication Suspension section

On balance I think the changes to the section improve both style and substance. While quoting an auditor's report directly (rather than news sources describing the report) may qualify as discouraged OR some flexibility in the Wikipedia OR policy is order. The question I have--and it is a question--is whether the revised section is becoming one-sided? Should the same level of detail be given to the charges as to the denials?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)