# Talk:The National (Scotland)

There are two problems with the introduction/summary:
1) Firstly, the language is suggestive, implying some link between the SNP and The National. The SNP is mentioned twice in summary. The National quite categorically stated this was not the case in its first issue, noting that whilst the newspaper supported independence, it would hold the SNP government to account like any other. Unless concrete proof can be provided that indicates otherwise, the language in the summary needs to be made more neutral.
(As an aside, it should be clear from the Scottish referendum that support for Scottish independence and the SNP are two distinct, very separate things.)
2) Undue weight. Wikipedia does not mention alleged political allegiances, for any Scottish newspaper, in article introductions. Not one. Therefore to make an exception in this case is unfair, and lends undue weight to allegations of SNP affiliation. 
A compromise would be to reword rather than remove the last paragraph of the Introduction, to make it more balanced and representative. (80.192.37.212 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC))

I don't double post as a rule, but an exception (at least in part) is needed here, I think. As the newspaper's political stance was a key part of the reason for its launch, I'm not sure what your complaint is, and while other Scottish newspaper articles don't mention their political allegiance, in this case it is relevant. I don't think the article implies a link between the newspaper and SNP, more that they share a common goal and that their choice of launch venue did raise a few eyebrows. Knowing the disagreements that may arise around this article's content, I wrote it with the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria in mind, and articles such as The Covent-Garden Journal. That is a featured article, and if you read through it you'll find discussion of controversies in its lede. The fact many of Wikipedia's other newspaper articles don't include the information may have more to do with them being incomplete. I am pleased that you've finally brought this issue to the talk page rather than just taking it out because it's not to your particular liking, so let's have a sensible discussion about this. This is Paul (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As of January 2015, the National has an estimated average weekly circulation of 30, 471 (and as a new publication this figure is an internal estimate provided by the Newsquest, derived from sales within Scotland).

The National, is no longer registered with ABC, As such there are no accurate figures for circulation and should be deemed to be less than published

This review is transcluded from Talk:The National (Scotland)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 08:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

It appears to be just Sunday Herald rather than The Sunday Herald.  Same for Evening Times and Financial Times.
Done.
The infobox has "Pro-independence" which simply links to Scottish independence, is there a more refined link available?
It seems to be a case of all roads leading to Rome. Pro Scottish independence and Scottish Independence Movement both link back to the Scottish independence article, but I'll keep looking.
I'd be ok with a link to a specific section of the same article if that's possible?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Picky, but should McPravda really be McPravda?
Done.
Can you contextualise Lesley Riddoch, why her opinion is worthy of inclusion in the lead...
Done.
Not keen on single-sentence paragraphs, any option for merging those two which finish the Background and Reception sections?
Done.
"first appeared " why not "was first published"?
Done.
No need to relink The Guardian in the Launch section, you already linked it in the lead and the Background section.  The Spectator is also linked in three consecutive sections.
Done.
Sunday Herald is linked in the main article so no need for it to be in the See also section.
Done.
Just a thought, worth adding a note in the infobox as to when the very precise circulation statistic was valid.
Done.
Nice, neat article.  Placing on hold for a week.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Although I didn't nominate this one, as I pretty much wrote it from scratch I'm happy to do what I can to get it promoted. This is Paul (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Think I've done everything now, but let me know if there are any more issues and I'll take another look. Thanks for the review. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks fine to me, so I'll pass to GA status, thanks for your timely and collaborative responses!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The intro presents comments in favour of the National by Lesley Riddoch. That's completely fine as it balances out the negative comments that are also mentioned, but it's misleading not to acknowledge that Riddoch is both an independence campaigner and a columnist for the newspaper. Both facts are vital for putting the statement in context - just as it's vital to know George Foulkes is a Labour peer. 82.26.17.69 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Um...no. She is a columnist for several newspapers (she writes for the Scotsman for example), and to state that she is one solely for the National is misleading. This is Paul (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Nobody, at any point, has suggested stating that she only writes for the National so that comment seems fairly irrelevant to the point being raised. The point was that it's useful for context to make clear she isn't an entirely neutral observer. 82.26.17.69 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

An anonymous ip has been altering the yes vote statistics in this article to make them look smaller (see here for an example). While technically this is correct the widely reported figure was 45% rather than 36%, and that is what we should be reporting. We are not purveyors of original research. This is Paul (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)