Talk:Lobster (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Lobster (magazine) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 6, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Magazines (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 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.

Stephen Dorril contributions?[edit]

I removed the following statements from the article:

In fact, it was my idea (Stephen Dorril) to start the magazine (I still hold the correspondence between myself and Robin Ramsay) in order to shift the focus away from primarily US politics/intelligence to looking at British politics/intelligence in terms of parapolitics. As co-editor, I funded the magazine for the first few issues and Robin did the typing and production.

As he stated in a letter to myself (Dorril)out-of-the-blue, at issue 26, Mr Ramsay decided that he was experiencing something of a mid-life crisis and wanted to have greater recognition for his contribution. He then decided to take the name, back copies and valuable subscription list for his own. Mr Dorril continued to publish Lobster for five more issues.

Even assuming this is Stephen Dorril, I don't think we can have direct claims from subjects of the article in the article itself, and definitely not in the first person. As the relevant correspondence is not publicly available, I don't think they are useful as a source. - Crosbiesmith 08:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If we can verify that it's Dorril, then it's a good source for what Dorril claims, I suppose. Although what he says isn't totally inconsistent with what Ramsay says (I'm guessing this squabble boils down to a pathetic semantic argument over what an 'editor' is), I'm tempted to just delete the question of 'editorship' out of there and just say it was started by those two and is now run by Ramsay. Oh, and the 5 post-split issues of Lobster he talks about aren't really the same Lobster that this article is about. --Aim Here 20:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced that this is unencylopedic[edit]

I'll readily agree that this isn't the best article in Wikipedia, but I don't think that it should be deleted without further discussion. Rlquall 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a poor article, but I think Lobster is notable enough to be mentioned. I removed the prod before the automatic deletion kicked in, but maybe we'll be visited by an AfD... --Aim Here 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

Removed the tag (added recently by someone who didn't add an explanation here). Did a quick LexisNexis search for Lobster plus editor's name and it came back with 64 references in UK/US etc newspapers and magazines, including the Independent and the Toronto Star. Of recent note was a July 2007 piece of over 1000 words (Hull Daily Mail, July 13 2007) entirely given over to discussing the magazine and its importance over the years. Agree the article isn't great but that's nothing to do with notability.Testbed (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if you find sources like that add them in here and we can take a look at them and add anything that looks useful. (Emperor (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
Happy too. They are quite long, so I'll put them in under new headings.Testbed (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability - again[edit]

As the newspaper articles referred to above were removed for copyright purposes (the same editor then immediately tagged the article for deletion, citing a lack of references - which is what I would call disingenuous) here are details of the two longest, one recent and one from over 15 years ago:-

Hull Daily Mail (July 13, 2007) Sexed-up files, lies and surveillance tapes ... One man's search to uncover what lies beneath By A Coggan

The Guardian (August 31, 1991) Inside Story: In the lair of the lobster - Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsey edit a left-wing journal that offers succour to conspiracy theorists and keeps the professionals on their toes By Robert McCrum Testbed (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

COI declaration[edit]

I wish to declare a potential conflict of interest, as I am the webmaster of the Lobster website, from which receive financial compensation. Editors may wish to subject my edits to addition scrutiny to ensure their objectivity. --Iantresman (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to see some work on this article at last. Thank you! I found the list of contributors rather hard to read so simplified the layout (perhaps you can find a way to remove the extra dots?) - also, given the discussions above, I removed people who don't already have an article to themselves. Hope to see more from you - could you provide a few more references to parts of the article, for example?Testbed (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Will try and do so. --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Another update, I've removed the template requesting citations, I think we have satisfied it. I still plan to add sections on (a) parapologics (b) The Colin Wallace/Clockwork Orange case. --Iantresman (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on all your work - the article is much better now. But you asked us to keep an eye on you: I have put back a self-description of the political positions of the founders, as this is pretty important. Testbed (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That's great, though I wonder whether we should have short subsection on each of the founders? --Iantresman (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I've requested a review of the article at WikiProject Magazines. --Iantresman (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination[edit]

Would I be premature in making a Good Article nomination? --Iantresman (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objections, and I think there are several people watching this page, I'll make the leap. --Iantresman (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've made the nomination. I think that compared to other Good Article class magazines its not too far away. --Iantresman (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lobster (magazine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  1. File:Lobster-issue2-1983.jpg = can this please be moved to Wikimedia Commons?
  2. File:Robin-ramsay-lobster.jpg = this file should be moved to Wikimedia Commons.
  3. File:Lobster-magazine-logo.svg = please move this file to Wikimedia Commons, as well.
  4. File:Lord Harold Wilson Allan Warren.jpg
  5. File:Margaret Thatcher (Retouched).JPG
  6. File:BigBenHDR.jpg = any idea on the date on this picture?
  7. File:Peter dale scott.png = can this file pleased be categorized on Wikimedia Commons properly?

Image notes above, the rest are okay.

Thanks for that, images 1-3 and 7 have now been copied to Commons. #7 has been categorised on Commons. Unfortunately I can find no date for #6. --Iantresman (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems that #1 has been removed from Commons, for reasons I don't understand, as it is public domain. There's also an issue with #2, and I am in the process of getting evidence that the copyright holder has provided permission. --Iantresman (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I made some fixes over at Commons. You mistakenly uploaded an image there with a "fair use rationale" template here from Wikipedia, that's probably what triggered the incorrect but good faith deletion over there. — Cirt (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, the images are now back over to Commons, and the photo of the editor now has its copright and permissions affirmed. --Iantresman (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, sounds great. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Next, on to stability review. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Stability check[edit]

  1. No outstanding issues, upon inspection of article edit history.
  2. Don't see any ongoing conflicts, upon inspection of article talk page.

Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 16, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  1. Writing style is okay, make sure to have cites at ends of all quotes, even blockquotes.
  2. A bit too much use of blockquotes and quotes, perhaps please try to paraphrase some of them.
  3. Suggest consulting WP:GOCE for copyediting help, won't get here in time for this review, but putting a request in for copyediting in the queue is a good thing in general. :)
  4. Recommend going for a Peer Review for additional input and review after the end of the GA Review process, regardless of outcome.
2. Factually accurate?:
  1. Some cites appear to be inadequate to satisfy WP:V policy.
  2. A few cites seem to need more to meet WP:V, and don't have enough info for adequate satisfactory verification.
  3. Hopefully, this can be easily remedied by adding page numbers, volume numbers, author names, and other fields as helped by using WP:CIT templates.
  4. Some examples of cites that need more info are below:
    • Lobster 22, 1991
    • Fortean Times, April 2001
    • Green Anarchist, Summer 2001
    • Direct Action magazine, Summer 2001
3. Broad in coverage?:
  1. Reception is alright ... but what about any analysis from Academic sources?
  2. Controversy section = needs more from multiple other different secondary sources, so as not to present a single source viewpoint. For example, first sub-subsection only uses one big ole blockquote from The Guardian, please trim that and or paraphrase it.
  3. House of Commons criticism - any other coverage of this info from different secondary sources?
4. Neutral point of view?: See above suggestions about Controversy section and Reception section.
5. Article stability? Stability pass, see above.
6. Images?: Images pass, see above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to go through the article. I've converted the two block quotes in prose, which seems to tick a few boxes. I'm trying to find details of some of the less informative references you mentioned, and hope to go through the article again over the next couple of days. Thanks again. --Iantresman (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for the responsiveness. Keep me posted, here. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I have one of the "short" citations expanded, with details of the others all in the post to me. I won't make the 48 hour time review, but will probably make the weekend. --Iantresman (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep me posted when you feel it's ready for another re-check. — Cirt (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There were edits on December 21 and 27. It's been two weeks since the last post; is this making good enough progress? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Good question, I've posted to the user's talk page for Iantresman (talk · contribs), cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very sorry for delay, I was waiting for details of a citation. I think we're ready for the next review. Here's a summary of changes:
  • Images: all sorted
  • 1. Well written: (1) Added missing cites at ends of all quotes and blockquotes (2) Some blockquotes removed and incorporated inline.[1] (3)&(4) Acknowledged
  • 2. Factually accurate? (1-4) Improved all cites mentioned
  • 3. Broad in coverage? (1) While Lobster is mentioned in some academic references, I could find no reviews. But I did find additional contributions and sources from (a) Chris Atton [2] (b) Curator of the of the CIA Historical Intelligence Collection, Hayden B. Peake [3] (2) Controversy quote rephrased inline [4](3) I couldn't find any more House of Commons sources, but we have (a) a secondary source (b) a very good primary source (Hansard), and I think they are used appropriately (4-6) Acknowledged.
In total, there are over 30 improvements throughout.[5] --Iantresman (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review passed[edit]

GA Review passed. Many thanks for the responsiveness to the above suggested changes. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And thank you too, I know that a lot of work goes into reading through an article, then providing constructive criticism, and then keeping an eye on the changes. But got there in the end. Thanks again, and to everyone one else who contriuted. --Iantresman (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)