 | A fact from First News appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 May 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Piers Morgan taking a role in raising the nation's children? The country has gone mad! Bhoeble 22:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that around the late 80s there was a similar paper called Young Times (not a News International publication) which perhaps we could give as another example of the idea not being original, even in recent history. But I can't find any references to it at first Googling. Does anyone else recall it? Barnabypage 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I now remember that it was called Early Times and have discovered that indeed it was edited by Cox! Barnabypage 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Reads like an advert. More specifically, reads like a Press Release for the publication written by an experienced WKP editor. I'd like to see a more neutral, less smug article, that isn't dancing right on the line of NPOV. External links are relevant, but all promotional. Clever. Tagging as advert.
Wondering why this talk page has no edit summaries. Centrepull ( talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- As to Edit summaries: Setting up new sections may not even allow summaries. When there's a title to the new section -- as in all but one I think here -- the title shows up on the Edit history and serves the same purpose. Swliv ( talk) 21:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Awful article. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.86.141 ( talk) 10:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- This was still a valid concern when I came across the page just today. I believe I’ve resolved it, but what we’re left with is pretty much a stub. We do still need more neutral third-party sources talking about this paper. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The dramatic variance between 'circulation' -- around 68,000 in 2013 -- and 'readership' -- over 1 million in 2011 -- asks for further attention and effort. I do recognize 'readership' can include multiple readers per copy, so-called 'hand-on readership'+- but still think 15+ readers per copy is large (though that's a real shaky figure comparing stats from two different years). More work on it anyone? I'll maybe try some time. Swliv ( talk) 21:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The only reference I can find to anything resembling “Readership Survey, Opinion Matters, 2011” is “First News Readership Survey”, which seems like it would be obviously biased, if that’s the source we’re using here. Does anyone have access to that source? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 05:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
|
| A fact from First News appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 May 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| |
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Piers Morgan taking a role in raising the nation's children? The country has gone mad! Bhoeble 22:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that around the late 80s there was a similar paper called Young Times (not a News International publication) which perhaps we could give as another example of the idea not being original, even in recent history. But I can't find any references to it at first Googling. Does anyone else recall it? Barnabypage 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I now remember that it was called Early Times and have discovered that indeed it was edited by Cox! Barnabypage 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Reads like an advert. More specifically, reads like a Press Release for the publication written by an experienced WKP editor. I'd like to see a more neutral, less smug article, that isn't dancing right on the line of NPOV. External links are relevant, but all promotional. Clever. Tagging as advert.
Wondering why this talk page has no edit summaries. Centrepull ( talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- As to Edit summaries: Setting up new sections may not even allow summaries. When there's a title to the new section -- as in all but one I think here -- the title shows up on the Edit history and serves the same purpose. Swliv ( talk) 21:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Awful article. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.86.141 ( talk) 10:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- This was still a valid concern when I came across the page just today. I believe I’ve resolved it, but what we’re left with is pretty much a stub. We do still need more neutral third-party sources talking about this paper. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The dramatic variance between 'circulation' -- around 68,000 in 2013 -- and 'readership' -- over 1 million in 2011 -- asks for further attention and effort. I do recognize 'readership' can include multiple readers per copy, so-called 'hand-on readership'+- but still think 15+ readers per copy is large (though that's a real shaky figure comparing stats from two different years). More work on it anyone? I'll maybe try some time. Swliv ( talk) 21:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The only reference I can find to anything resembling “Readership Survey, Opinion Matters, 2011” is “First News Readership Survey”, which seems like it would be obviously biased, if that’s the source we’re using here. Does anyone have access to that source? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 05:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)