Talk:This Day
 | This article is written in Nigerian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled, centre) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 5 August 2017
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved to base name and DAB bumped, per wp:SNOW. Andrewa (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thisday → This Day (newspaper) – I'm not sure if the words are together like "thisday" because looking at the logo, it looks like it is called "This Day". 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:2DBB:5CB9:A2DD:51C6 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support known as This Day in printed sources. This doesn't even appear to be a valid or used stylism. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Would also support moving to This Day and bumping dab page to This Day (disambiguation) as no other notable subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Neutrality
editAs it stands, this page seems to fall somewhat short of standards for neutrality. Much of the page contains praise for the paper, often unsubstantiated, and more critical edits have been removed in the past despite proper citations.
Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view before making edits to this page. In particular, I feel the page still fails to meet the following neutrality guidelines:
- Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
- Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.
I have added the POV template to the page sot that other editors can assess its neutrality, and make their own corrections to bring it in line with neutrality guidelines.