Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Cormac McCarthy Journal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The Cormac McCarthy Journal 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. Review: September 4, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from The Cormac McCarthy Journal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Blz 2049 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Cormac McCarthy Journal; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
I hate to pee on the party, as obviously a lot of effort has gone into this, but having looked at several references, I do not see how this is notable. It misses WP:NJOURNALS by a mile, nor do I see the in-depth coverage of the journal, as opposed to its subject sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Even the reference for the hook in the above DYK nomination is nothing more than an in-passing mention. Perhaps I have missed something, so before taking this to AfD, perhaps Mujinga or Blz_2049 can list those references that actually treat the journal in depth? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
"considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area"), criterion 2 (
"the journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources"), and/or criterion 3 (
"historically important in its subject area"). All of these criteria are considered relative to the field in question, which in this case is modern American literary studies. I discuss citation frequency and impact factor more below.You suggest WP:GNG requires "in-depth" treatment of the journal within at least one discrete source, divorced from any broader treatment of the journal's subject or subject area. But that's not the case. In-depth coverage of a journal within at least one single discrete source is not required, let alone coverage in isolation from the journal's subject matter. WP:GNG says
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"and
"no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple [secondary] sources are generally expected". There's plenty of nontrivial treatment of the journal in scholarly and journalistic sources, and those that describe its impact within its field of study typically describe it as influential and important for its role in establishing McCarthy studies as a recognized author-specific area of scholarship within American lit studies.I don't know what point you're trying to make about the DYK hook reference. Not every cited source in a Wikipedia article must also therein establish its subject's notability. The primary criteria for selecting DYK hooks are verifiability and quirky tendency to elicit a general reader's curiosity, so I'm not sure why you seem to imply a DYK hook reference would be unusually more likely to justify its subject's notability. The fact is verifiable. The source is reliable. That's all they need to be for their purpose. This strikes me as an irrelevant point that just muddies the waters.In the GA review, you raised the issue of its low journal impact factor (JIF) in passing; I now take that comment to be an implicit concern about WP:JOURNALCRIT criterion 2. I get that a super-low JIF can be a red flag for journals, particularly for those in STEM fields. But a journal having a low impact factor is also not inherently disqualifying and doesn't make it non-notable. Its JIF doesn't measure, for example, citations to the journal in the many book-length treatments of McCarthy's work. As the University of Sussex Library notes of Arts and Humanities Journals:
"In fields where monographs are the dominant format for scholarly communications, metrics based on journal citation data cannot convey a complete picture of journal impact."For what it's worth, the Journal Citation Reports assigns the journal a field-normalized journal citation indicator (JCI) was 2.62 for 2021 and 1.08 for 2022, where 1.0 represents the average citation count for a given category—meaning The Cormac McCarthy Journal has actually been performing a bit better than average within its field of American literature, citability-wise. This kind of contextualization between academic fields with different citation practices is exactly what JCR intended when they introduced the JCI metric:
"Providing this information ... will increase exposure to journals from all disciplines, helping users to understand how they compare to more established sources of scholarly content. By incorporating field normalization into the calculation, the Journal Citation Indicator will also allow users to compare citation impact between disciplines more easily and fairly"("Introducing the Journal Citation Indicator: A new, field-normalized measurement of journal citation impact", 2021). I've now added the JCI to the article for that reason. The Cormac McCarthy Journal may not be lighting the world on fire, but it's not nearly as deficient as a glance at its impact factor alone might suggest.Look, I'm not saying that this is the most significant journal ever or anything. I marked this article as low-importance within every WikiProject it falls under. But "low-importance" ≠ non-notable. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 00:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.