Talk:Transatlantic Review (1959–1977)

What about the former Transatlantic Review?

Anybody who knows something about English-language literature knows that the famous Transatlantic Review is the one edited by Ford Madox Ford in the 1920s. But the only Wikipedia entry called Transatlantic Review is this, which talks about a not-so-famous review with the same name. This entry should mention both magazines, also because I suspect that Joseph F. McCrindle chose that name for his review due to the one previously edited by F.M. Ford.--213.140.21.227 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Pepso2 (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that this works. FMF's magazine should have its own page as this entry is very specifically about McCrindle's. Another thing "the transatlantic review" was always lower case and with the definite article. Transatlantic Review dropped "the" after the first few issues. Ford's magazine was also sometimes referred to as "The Paris Review" and should be fully described including its publication of Ezra Pound, James Joyce and Gertrude Stein as well as Hemingway (and the story of how he fell out with Ford over the content of one issue).

The biographical connection between the two reviews is that Ford moved to Winchelsea in 1901 and McCrindle once owned a seaside cottage there (which B S Johnson sometimes used as a writing retreat).

The second TR is not such an unfamous review having encouraged the early careers of many fine authors including William Trevor and John Banville and was a very important part of the London literary scene from the early 60s into the 70s.

It is right that the entry should mention Ford's review of course but it it is not appropirate to merge them.

Altcult101 (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I had to juggle some words so the two titles would not be confusing. Pepso2 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tidy-up; the page looks much improved. Altcult101 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

whatdidyoudo

I added the talk header, and refactored, putting comments in date order top to bottom per WP:Talk#Layout. This article needs work, I expect much discussion will be taking place.

• Separated intro and history, because there will always be a WP table of contents, might as well let it be at the top.
• Used image native size - no point zooming in on a blurry image.
• Why not use better images such as this or this? All three are from the same source, but the latter two are readable. Covers are fair use.
• Per WP:VERIFY, more sources are needed, and at least one specific citation per paragraph. I added one.

--Lexein (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)