Talk:The Guardian

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Guardian article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 90 days

The Guardian is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 12, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 20, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Greater Manchester B‑class High‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism B‑class Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Media B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

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)[reply]

Failed GA status

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

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

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

Circulation figure is wrong.

Can we correct the circulation figures on the article please. Three separate circulation figures are mentioned and the only one that is correct is 209,354. The others are wildly out of date and as the publication has been in sharp decline no longer remotely accurate. The Guardian use the ABC verified number (Jul 2012) of 209,354 themselves. Robbyyy (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bare links and poorly formatted cites

Hi there, GA Reviewer here. There's a few bare-links as cites and poorly formatted cites. Please go through and format these using WP:CIT templates. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Google

Has anyone got any more information of the Guardian's relationship with Google as the new UK HQ for Google is only round the corner from the Guardian office in Kings Cross and the comment system on the Guardian website won't let comments about Google that are negative be published. Was there some kind of financial arrangement in June 2012? 188.221.174.94 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]