Talk:The Guardian

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Guardian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Failed GA status

Failed GA status due to numerous sourcing problems, poor referencing standards, lack of citations in many places all over entire article:

1. Bare links and unformatted cites, please format all cites using 'WP:CIT cite templates.
2. C. P. Scott subsection = last paragraph is uncited.
3. Spanish Civil War subsection = entire section is uncited.
4. Post-war subsection = 2nd sentence has a clarification needed tag.
5. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq subsection = there's a citation needed tag.
6. Ownership subsection = 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs have several uncited sentences.
7. Political stance and editorial opinion subsection = 1st and 2nd paragraph have uncited sentences.
8. Publication history subsection = All paragraphs in this subsection have uncited sentences.
9. Moving to the Berliner paper format subsection = All paragraphs in this subsection have uncited sentences.
10. Reception subsection = 1st paragraph in this section has uncited sentence.
11. Regular content and features = Most of this section is largely uncited.
12. Online media subsection = End of 2nd paragraph is uncited.
13. GuardianFilms subsection = 2nd and 3rd paragraphs have uncited quotes, a big no-no.
14. References in popular culture subsection = End of 1st paragraph is uncited.
15. Awards subsection = Both sub-sects in this sect have lots of uncited material.
16. Editors sect = Totally uncited.
17. Notable regular contributors (past and present) sect = Uncited and tagged as problem sect.
18. The Guardian News & Media Archive sect = largely uncited.

— Cirt (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Publisher vs. Parent?

The infobox lists Guardian Media Group (GMG) as the publisher for The Guardian. Whilst they are the parent company, https://www.theguardian.com/ lists "Guardian News & Media Limited" at the bottom in the copyright tag. A quick look on Companies House indicates that Guardian News & Media Limited is owned by Guardian News & Media (Holding) Limited, which in turn is owned by GMG (and then the Scott Trust).

On the face of it, it seems like The Guardian is published by "Guardian News and Media Limited", who in turn are owned by GMG.

I have the following questions:

• Should "Publisher" be listed as "Guardian News & Media Limited" (GMG is additionally listed as "Owner")?

Although this is a minor point in itself, there are currently at least two confusingly similar redirects - Guardian News and Media Ltd. points to The Guardian whilst Guardian News and Media points to Guardian Media Group. I can't see a good reason for this split. So the questions then is:

• Should the redirect Guardian News and Media Ltd. point at GMG, not back to The Guardian?
• or should Guardian News and Media point at The Guardian, not at GMG?

Clearly the Limited company does not require it's own article or anything, and we are not concerned about legal instruments/intermediaries such as the "(Holding) Ltd" company but we seem to have two very similar redirects going to different places. I don't know which is correct, but it would be helpful if this could be tidied up so as to avoid confusion and make it clearer what should be used as "Publisher=" in {{cite}} tags Hemmers (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Paper circulation is no longer a relevent figure

The only relevant figure nowadays in online readership. It's almost absurd that the physical paper circulation is in the infobox rather than daily or weekly online readership.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

British Republicanism?

This is listed under 'political alignment' and should probably be removed. Anyone who has been reading their coverage of the Queen's death and the opinion pieces on the subject would get the opposite impression. 109.153.115.140 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, not specifically because of their coverage of the Queens death but because a tangential mention in a single opinion piece is insufficient support for the claim. Captainllama (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

Requesting an edit to clarify that the Guardian newspaper belongs to the political hard/far-left as a newspaper of record in the UK. 24.228.128.195 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• The lead correctly says "The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion". Is there anything lower down about "political hard/far-left" (which would be wrong)? Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Victim of Cyberattack

Paper's offices have been closed for a month due to cyberattack. Doesn't seem to have affected coverage/day to day activities, but perhaps worth mentioning? [1] Sawitontwitter (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

For a start have been closed is wrong, as according to the article the closure started on Dec. 20. But is your source a reliable one?--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)