Talk:Afterall

Magazines Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Improvements

It's not my area of expertise, but this article is much more about the journals etc than the organisation itself, so I don't think it really qualifies under A7. It needs wikifying certainly but I am not sure that it qualifies for deletion. Since one of the journals is eponymous I see little reason to move it. St Martin's is a notable art institution and with some work I can see this becoming a useful wikipedia article.

On the other hand the huge stream of names is probably not helpful.

SimonTrew (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I am the creator of the article. I've added internal wiki-links to the list of artists we have covered; please let me know if that is helpful? Afterall is indeed a well-regarded journal in the field of contemporary art. Its three main editors are Charles Esche, director of a major Dutch museum (the Vanabbe in Eindhoven), Mark Lewis, an artist who is representing Canada at the Venice Biennale this year, and Thomas Lawson, dean of CalArts. Perhaps I should add more to the first paragraph about the organisation's ethos and the kind of writing featured?

Thanks very much in advance.

Hi -- Afterall is until now been regarded as a Journal, the book series and event series are of newer date (started in 2006, as the journal in 1998/99), that would explain why there is more about the journal then the organisation itself.

But, I would consider to re-do the info box, it does now state Afterall Journal, maybe change that? - I have put a citation needed on the information about afterall books upcoming series on exhibitions as I found nothing about it on the net. --Norskkunstpåwiki (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

∼∼∼∼ csmcad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmcad (talk • contribs) 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of issue contents. Issue dates.

I the enumeration of the conttributors to each journal issue should really be moved to a separate article (which can then stand or fall on its own merits). Here it just clogs the piece.

Also, the main text quotes e.g. (Spring 2006) but no issue number, are we supposed just to guess or do some arithmetic, assuming they have been published as regularly as implied?. A simple '(#3)' or whatever would be enough.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the use of "Spring 2007" etc is discouraged because in the southern hemisphere it would be Autumn. If that is the official numbering scheme then keep that (as apposed to "First quarter" or "March" or whatever) but it would be good also to have firmer dates. (WP:POV) SimonTrew (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and other issues

The article starts with talking about an organization, then talks about a journal (according to its web site simply entitle Afterall, not Afterall journal), then starts talking about book series, etc. It should be reorganized to concentrate first on the organization and then perhaps in separate chapters handle journal, books, etc. From the current text it is not clear that this is an academic journal, so I have removed the WPJournals banner and replaced it with an apparently more appropriate one. If this is incorrect, the article should show this is an academic journal before changing back the banner. I agree with above comments on the long list of featured artists, a few of the most notable examples should be enough. I don't know whether an article has created with the contents of each individual issue, that would not appear to me to be a suitable article for WP. --Crusio (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How noteworthy is Afterall?

I've been looking for reliable sources to improve this article and I can't really find any high quality independent sources reporting on it... can anyone else find any? Or if not... does that suggest this article should be deleted? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]