Talk:Quarterly Review

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

Revival[edit]

The magazine was revived in 2007. According to their website, "The Quarterly Review was revived in 2007, under the aegis of former Conservative MP Sir Richard Body, who is Chairman of the Editorial Board. It appeared as a print journal between Spring 2007 and Autumn 2011 – PDFs of all issues are available at our Archive page – but like many other journals it has migrated to the internet." cagliost (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't really though - this is just a wordpress website that took up the same name. Nblund^talk 13:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They had a print version for 4 years. cagliost (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that either has any connection to the original Quarterly Review. The contact information for the editor is a Gmail address, and the most frequent contributors appear to be fringe alt right figures like Ilana Mercer. Anyone can start a WordPress website and claim to be a "revival" of a defunct periodical. Nblund^talk 19:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that the revival had a connection to the original in the sense of owning the naming rights (unlike Punch or Vanity Fair). The article could still mention it, it was a serious print journal (e.g. Sir Richard Body as Chairman of the Editorial Board). Forget the wordpress site, I'm talking about the print edition. cagliost (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable secondary sources that mention it? Nblund^talk 14:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long articles[edit]

In a relatively brief entry, that the journal had long articles is a minor point; the QR was not unique in that respect. A more salient point not made in this entry is that the focus of most QR articles is a subject; the book being reviewed often is not the focus of the article per se. QR1809Gifford (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]