Talk:Cook's Illustrated

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  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.

Untitled[edit]

I'm a big fan of Cook's so I decided to take on this stub and add some content. I've divided this into preliminary sections which basically mirror the magazine. I know that (a lot) more needs to be done, but it's a start! Superbeecat 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How long?[edit]

How long has the magazine been around? That seems like pertinent info that should be in this article. 66.251.84.28 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the above sentence from "How long has the magazine been around for?" to "How long has the magazine been around?" Always good to help each other out with our English.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.118 (talkcontribs)

Web subscribers[edit]

The article states both that the website has 150,000 and 300,000 subscribers. Which is it? Patricia Meadows (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate references?[edit]

I notice that the two references for the subscription trouble (7 and 8) are links to posts on two Q/A forums. (and one link is dead now to boot) I don't write for wikipedia or anything, but it seems to me that a forum thread is not really suitable as a proper reference for something. When I look at the references for other pages, I'm wanting to see links to articles and news pages and things that have been published. Some people complaining on a forum doesn't really serve to properly back up a statement, in my mind. Is this standard wikipedia practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.202.157 (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms section needs to be impartial[edit]

As it is currently written, the Criticism section contains a number of opinions, such as "This seems to fall under fair use ..." Can it be rewritten to state the facts without straying across the line into personal opinion? --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


This section also has some grammar/spelling issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.63.81 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)