Talk:News on Sunday

Journalism Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-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

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text tightening

Have just reverted the good faith revert by Hohenloh to the previous edit by Les woodland. The newer version is more in keeping with an encyclopaedic style of writing. If there are serious differences in meaning between the two versions that I haven't spotted, how about solving them piecemeal, as opposed to a blanket revert? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just by way of example, the expression "but failed to take off" in the lead doesn't really make for a serious, authoritative article, does it? --Technopat (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing against improving the original version (it needed improving!), I just didn't think, IMHO, the update was done particularly well, firstly from a stylistic point of view, and as I mentioned, appeared to change the original meaning a few times (and this newspaper topic is something I have taken an interest in for some time). Had I had the time I would indeed have done a copy-edit, but am too busy with other articles at the moment. So I simply did the rv to at least bring attention to this. If I get the chance later on I'll take a look at it, if not, all the best! Hohenloh⁺03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own recollection is that a lot of people who were basically sympathetic to the idea of a left-wing national newspaper gave up on it after a few weeks. One example of the reasons why they might have was that in publicity before they gave "Sex mad colonel spanked my privates" as an example of the sort of headline they would not be printing, in an early issue they printed the headline "Spanker Proctor Quits". PatGallacher (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]