Talk:Review article

Less precision should be unilaterally assigned the term "review journal" by Wikipedia?
It seems "review journal" over the years has become used more and more to designate a particular breed of journal, one (especially in the hard sciences) containing specifically review articles. But in certain social sciences--eg history, where its oftener the case that some brave new path under review as produced by a lone historian consolidating his research/view into a book-length monograph--the practice is that journals containing distinct review articles along with a select series of book reviews of these books by historians are called review journals (which book reviews, of course, are produced by a fellow historian' assessing the book/research's place within the field as a whole). In light of the fact that our Wikidefinition of Review journal is unsourced due to a dearth of published material containing a def of the term, it's important Wikipedia remain as circumspect as possible and out of the forefront in popularizing any particular understanding of the definition for the term not directly supported by reliable sources. Let's tweak the term's definition a bit for more precision of the term's use in general practice even tho this def. arguably would be a looser one.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid repetitiveness: see discussion at Talk:Review journal. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and WPdians are not RSes. Please provide a source for your view that the current definition, used in the article, is correct.
 * Eg see here: Political Justice in a Republic by JP McWilliams Jr (1972, Cambridge Univ Press):"Redgrave [Information Systems] will publish a new review journal in American history and related disciplines which will carry timely, in-depth review-essays of scholarly and non-fiction trade books and of reprints, teaching and research materials. Reviews in American History contains 160 pages per issue...."Immed. above is an example (of many easy to find) where an RS intends "review journal" to reference a journal publishing, along with review articles, book reviews.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians are indeed no RS. That includes you, though. The article is the result of a long-standing consensus involving multiple editors. To change that unilaterally you will need a better source than a promotional announcement. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the further thread of this discussion be located only here: Talk:Review journal. Any objections?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * absolutely, saves time and effort. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought this up, I found it strange that this article has zero mention of scholarly journals entirely devoted to reviews of academic monographs; is it worth mentioning that in a section here? A hate note to a new section in Book review? (N.B. the current hatnote of book review, confusingly, reads This article is about the use of the term in literary criticism. For the use of the term in academia, see book review., directing the reader to the same article? The article at present has the line Some journals are devoted to book reviews, and reviews are indexed in databases such as Book Review Index and Kirkus Reviews; but many more book reviews can be found in newspaper and scholarly databases such as Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and discipline-specific databases. and a ton of Further reading which seems out of scope if the article is supposed to be about lit crit.) Umimmak (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)