![]() | The Philadelphia Inquirer is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2008. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the article should mention the other two that out date it. I'm interested in what is older and think it would enhance the article by giving a vantage point on similarly old surviving papers.
The section on the paper's politics is NOT current, and is IMO somewhat deceptive in that most of that section is dedicated the paper's bias towards Republicans. This hasn't been the case at least since I arrived in the area in the mid 80's, by which time the paper had clearly tilted Left.
The Philadelphia Inquirer has a left-wing bias today. [2] [3] The lead should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#How_to_reference_summary_style_sections_such_as_the_lead_section. Please add comments if you wish. Carcharoth 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "When Philadelphia banks began to close, that news was relegated to the back of the financial section" seems very awkward to me. I changed it to "Information about Philadelphia banks closing was relegated to the back of the financial section." but I'm not 100% that's better. Anyone else have any thoughts? Bassg☢☢nist Talk/ Contribs 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Different articles in Wikipedia contradict over the year that Cyrus Curtis purchased the paper. It seems it was either 1913 or 1930. Do you have a reliable reference that can resolve this? ike9898 ( talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
When the Inquirer was in the Elverson Building, its longtime home at Broad and Callowhill, it was understandable for Wikipedia to have a single article covering both the newspaper and the building (though, in my opinion, it would also have been fine to have separate articles as, for instance Comcast and its building do). Now that the newspaper and the building have parted ways, it's time for the Wikipedia content to do likewise. This would allow these distinct (though related) topics to be covered independently and allow the geographic coordinates of the Philadelphia Inquirer article to show the location of the Philadelphia Inquirer, rather than that of the building that formerly housed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypoBoy ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Per MOS:LAYOUT, Further reading is usually a separate section rather than a subsection of References, since these entries are not cited sources. Is there a particular reason not to do that in this case? Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a dated FA that has not been maintained to standard. There is considerable uncited text, and text that was cited to a dead search. The links in See also (eg Gold Seal Novel) indicate that the article might no longer be comprehensive and up to date. There is also text cited to very old sources, (eg, It has the 18th largest average weekday U.S. newspaper circulation and has won 20 Pulitzer Prizes.[4]) and a lack of "as of dates". The lead is not an up-to-date summary of the article, and I have removed external jumps from the text. Also, see WP:NOTPRICE, and I have corrected multiple layout issues. Updating and correcting is needed so that the article will not need to be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | The Philadelphia Inquirer is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2008. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the article should mention the other two that out date it. I'm interested in what is older and think it would enhance the article by giving a vantage point on similarly old surviving papers.
The section on the paper's politics is NOT current, and is IMO somewhat deceptive in that most of that section is dedicated the paper's bias towards Republicans. This hasn't been the case at least since I arrived in the area in the mid 80's, by which time the paper had clearly tilted Left.
The Philadelphia Inquirer has a left-wing bias today. [2] [3] The lead should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#How_to_reference_summary_style_sections_such_as_the_lead_section. Please add comments if you wish. Carcharoth 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "When Philadelphia banks began to close, that news was relegated to the back of the financial section" seems very awkward to me. I changed it to "Information about Philadelphia banks closing was relegated to the back of the financial section." but I'm not 100% that's better. Anyone else have any thoughts? Bassg☢☢nist Talk/ Contribs 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Different articles in Wikipedia contradict over the year that Cyrus Curtis purchased the paper. It seems it was either 1913 or 1930. Do you have a reliable reference that can resolve this? ike9898 ( talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
When the Inquirer was in the Elverson Building, its longtime home at Broad and Callowhill, it was understandable for Wikipedia to have a single article covering both the newspaper and the building (though, in my opinion, it would also have been fine to have separate articles as, for instance Comcast and its building do). Now that the newspaper and the building have parted ways, it's time for the Wikipedia content to do likewise. This would allow these distinct (though related) topics to be covered independently and allow the geographic coordinates of the Philadelphia Inquirer article to show the location of the Philadelphia Inquirer, rather than that of the building that formerly housed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypoBoy ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Per MOS:LAYOUT, Further reading is usually a separate section rather than a subsection of References, since these entries are not cited sources. Is there a particular reason not to do that in this case? Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a dated FA that has not been maintained to standard. There is considerable uncited text, and text that was cited to a dead search. The links in See also (eg Gold Seal Novel) indicate that the article might no longer be comprehensive and up to date. There is also text cited to very old sources, (eg, It has the 18th largest average weekday U.S. newspaper circulation and has won 20 Pulitzer Prizes.[4]) and a lack of "as of dates". The lead is not an up-to-date summary of the article, and I have removed external jumps from the text. Also, see WP:NOTPRICE, and I have corrected multiple layout issues. Updating and correcting is needed so that the article will not need to be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)