Talk:n+1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the N+1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Magazines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Picture?[edit]

can anyone add a picture for this page?

NPOV tag[edit]

This page, critical notes and citations notwithstanding, reads like an advocacy for n+1 magazine and its interests. Please consider the history, mission, and success of this magazine (and its critical response) from a neutral viewpoint and revise accordingly. I can help if needed. Jonathan F 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, watch italics in titles. Jonathan F 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thanks for the tag. Can't you just edit it into your NPOV prose? I thought the critical notes were good enough. What do you thing would better NPOV this article? I don't totally understand what constitutes NPOV writing. Should I just combine the critical responses with the main article, Jonathan F? Does anyone else have thoughts on this, does it read like an advertisement? (Made some changes)

Reposted from my (Jonathan F) talk page:

n+1 was tagged because it has stylistic and organizational problems that cause it to read sympathetic to the interests of the magazine founders. The entry should instead explain the "importance" of the magazine. By importance, I don't necessarily mean value, but rather definition, nature, history, influence (or influences), etc. The New Yorker entry might be helpful in guiding revisions in these areas (bulleted items discuss TNY):

Lead
The first sentence gives a concise definition of the subject. The definition provides context for the article, which is further established in the lead. The lead also gives an overview of the article to follow. See also WP:Lead
Structure
The article successfully expounds on topics introduced in the lead. Its organization is sensible, in that the unique features of the magazine (cartoons, short stories) are tackled in subsequent sections.
Writing style
Generally clear and unbiased. The contributors have typically gone only as far as indicating commonly held views of the magazine and its contents.

Also, from glancing at Scott's New York Times Magazine profile of n+1, it looks to be a feature story, so pulling out a quote to give an example of "harsh criticism" may be taking the words out of context (the overall tone of the article is appreciative). Jonathan F 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Issuefour.jpg[edit]

Image:Issuefour.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 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 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Issue1 cover.gif[edit]

Image:Issue1 cover.gif 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verify Gessen quote[edit]

The entry begins with a quote from Gessen in the second sentence:

"like Partisan Review, except not dead"

Can anyone verify the Gessen quote? I see many sites online attributing this quote to him, but I think it should be verified. Did it come from an interview? Was it published in n+1 itself?