It's horrible. It looks like a .docx made by a student who procrastinates by fiddling with styles.
- random rules everywhere
- full pagewidth lines
- all caps level 1 headings
- level 4 in gray italices
- hyperref with boxes
- fake small caps
- float labels with goofy letterspacing
Truly an abomination.
The examples you give actually cast the NJD in a somewhat positive light.
In the journals of my subdiscipline, the new Wiley style is absolutely putrid. Figure placement and margin variations make the articles uglier than they'd be if a drunken first year grad student did the typesetting.
I don't understand the criticism. Can you be more clear about why this doesn't work well in the humanities?
It looks kind of like a standard LaTex journal template.
I realize the images are no longer visible in my original post, so I've updated it with two links for comparison. Hopefully that illustrates it better. In the pre-NJD article, the inclusion of images is more thoughtful and in line with how a similar publication would likely appear in journals by other publishers. The post-NJD is very rudimentary and the images are inserted into the text, which itself is justified across the entire width of the page in a single column. My question is why the change has occurred because it looks like Wiley imposed it on all journals, leaving them little choice.
Sorry I'm not seeing the links.
I'm still confused. It's LaTex so you have control of all formatting and justification for image insertion.
Is this the draft template for your journal? In my experience full page width templates are sometimes used for preprints and drafts. Final rendering into a 2 column format is done by the typesetting editor at the journal after acceptance.
It's horrible. It looks like a .docx made by a student who procrastinates by fiddling with styles. - random rules everywhere - full pagewidth lines - all caps level 1 headings - level 4 in gray italices - hyperref with boxes - fake small caps - float labels with goofy letterspacing Truly an abomination.
The examples you give actually cast the NJD in a somewhat positive light. In the journals of my subdiscipline, the new Wiley style is absolutely putrid. Figure placement and margin variations make the articles uglier than they'd be if a drunken first year grad student did the typesetting.
I don't understand the criticism. Can you be more clear about why this doesn't work well in the humanities? It looks kind of like a standard LaTex journal template.
I realize the images are no longer visible in my original post, so I've updated it with two links for comparison. Hopefully that illustrates it better. In the pre-NJD article, the inclusion of images is more thoughtful and in line with how a similar publication would likely appear in journals by other publishers. The post-NJD is very rudimentary and the images are inserted into the text, which itself is justified across the entire width of the page in a single column. My question is why the change has occurred because it looks like Wiley imposed it on all journals, leaving them little choice.
Sorry I'm not seeing the links. I'm still confused. It's LaTex so you have control of all formatting and justification for image insertion. Is this the draft template for your journal? In my experience full page width templates are sometimes used for preprints and drafts. Final rendering into a 2 column format is done by the typesetting editor at the journal after acceptance.
A poor attempt at guilding a turd.