Talk:The Sentinel (Staffordshire)

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

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.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article lacks neutrality and in places reads like a PR exercise. Unsurprisingly, the document history reveals extensive edits and additions by "195.171.163.185" and "SentinelStoke", both of which are clearly employees and/or writers acting on behalf of the newspaper. Reasons for editing like: "Incorporating a brief history of our newspaper" (195.171.163.185), and "Additional information on The Sentinel, provided by The Sentinel" (SentinelStoke) make this obvious.

There is an obvious conflict of interest here, and the entry needs re-writing from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.37.220 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it reads like an internally produced PR document. I'm going to add a POV template. --Ef80 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 51.219.71.218 (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]