Talk:New York Graphic

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Another article inspired by my curiosity regarding something mentioned in a song lyric. (see Elsie de Wolfe for another example). One day I hope to get around to Drumstick Lipstick! Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting needed

Don't get me wrong, please — I'm not saying that this is a bad article, rather that a fair amount of the writing seems to me to be rather unencyclopaedic in style and tone. There are phrases such as a classic outsider (in whose opinion? and what is a classic outsider?); there are paragraphs like this one:

"Macfadden announced the forthcoming Graphic in page announcements in New York papers as the most unique daily that would ever be seen since Johannes Gutenberg did his first printing. Behind this venture the publisher definitely had a new idea. If it had been possible to apply it to daily journalism. In all of its editorial branches, the Graphic might well have reached a million circulation in a comparatively short time."

the most unique daily — is that what was written in the announcements? If not, then where? Never mind most unique...

would ever be seen and definitely had a new idea are poor tone.

Following that, there's an orphan clause masquerading as a sentence.

might well have reached is opinion and conjecture.

comparatively — in comparison with what?

Yes, everyone's a critic; but that's how we keep improving Wikipedia. The problem is that I'm unfamiliar with the article topic and the relevant sources, so I'm almost certainly not the best person to be making the needed changes. I hope that someone more able than I can step up and make this a good article.

I hope that my comments haven't hurt the original poster's feelings; it certainly wasn't my intention to do so, and if I have done, I apologise.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York Graphic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219181215/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/1/1981_1_22.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/1/1981_1_22.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]