<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />

    {{Shortcut|WP:USATODAY}}
<!-- TODO: Add DISPLAYTITLE back when generating actual pages, with correct URL -->
<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/''USA Today''}} -->
{{Infobox
| title            = [[USA Today]]
| image            = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label2           = source type
| data2            = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3           = publisher
| data3            = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5           = website
| data5            = 
| label6           = classification
| data6            = [[File:Yes Check Circle.svg|20px]] Usually reliable for typical purposes
}}

There is consensus that staff-written articles on ''USA Today'' are generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its [[centrism|centrist]] alignment. Some content is written by [[contributor model|contributors]] with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.

== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}

<blockquote>''Please add links to other significant discussions.  When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''</blockquote>

* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9#USA Today]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 44#MLM, USAToday quoting a trade organisation in a lifestyle section]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#MMA reliability]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 238#USA Today article on a book]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 377#USA Today]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430#USA Today]]

* [[Talk:USA Today/Archive 1#Is USA Today centrist?]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#USA Today]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:USA Today, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
<references />
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gr" id="USA Today"
| ''[[USA Today]]'' {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:USATODAY}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gr}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9#USA Today|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 44#MLM, USAToday quoting a trade organisation in a lifestyle section|2]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#MMA reliability|3]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 238#USA Today article on a book|4]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 377#USA Today|5]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430#USA Today|6]]<br> [[Talk:USA Today/Archive 1#Is USA Today centrist?|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#USA Today|B]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2024}}
| There is consensus that staff-written articles on ''USA Today'' are generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its [[centrism|centrist]] alignment. Some content is written by [[contributor model|contributors]] with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|usatoday.com|usatoday.com/story/special/contributor-content}}
|}