NYT ‘Strands’ Today: Hints, Spangram And Answers For Monday, April 28th

Forbes - Apr 28th, 2025

The New York Times has launched a new word puzzle game called Strands, offering a unique twist on traditional word search games. Each day, players receive a themed puzzle, where they must discover words fitting that theme on a grid. The game includes a special feature called a spangram, a word that spans across two sides of the board. Today’s theme is 'My bad!', focusing on mishaps of movement or speech. The spangram for today's puzzle is 'WHOOPSIEDAISY,' with other related words like BLUNDER, STUMBLE, and SLIP also featured in the grid.

This new addition to the NYT's puzzle lineup aims to engage readers with a mix of challenge and entertainment, continuing the publication's tradition of offering word-based games that stimulate the mind. The launch of Strands showcases the New York Times' commitment to expanding its puzzle offerings, providing subscribers with diverse and engaging content. The game not only reinforces the newspaper's brand as a leader in puzzle innovation but also enhances reader interaction and loyalty through daily participation.

New York Times Spangram Puzzle Games Strands Game Word Puzzles Whoopsiedaisy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and engaging narrative about the New York Times' game 'Strands,' focusing on a specific day's theme and gameplay experience. It excels in clarity and readability, offering a logical flow and accessible language. However, it lacks transparency and source quality, as it does not cite external sources or verify claims with authoritative references. The content is timely and relevant to a niche audience of puzzle enthusiasts but has limited impact and public interest appeal. Overall, the article serves its purpose as entertainment and informational content for a specific audience, though improvements in source attribution and broader perspective inclusion could enhance its reliability and balance.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of the New York Times' game 'Strands' and includes specific details such as the theme for the day, the spangram, and the list of words to find. These details align with the typical format and rules of the game as described in external sources. However, the accuracy could be further verified by checking the official New York Times Games section or player experiences to ensure the provided theme and words match the actual game for the specified date. The factual accuracy is high, but without direct citation from primary sources, a small margin of error remains.

Balance

The article focuses solely on the game 'Strands,' offering a singular perspective on its gameplay and experience. While it provides a personal gameplay narrative, it lacks a broader range of viewpoints, such as feedback from other players or expert analysis of the game's design and impact. This singular focus may lead to an imbalanced representation, though the nature of the content—a game review—typically centers on personal experience.

Clarity

The language of the article is clear and engaging, with a friendly tone that is easy to follow. The structure is logical, guiding the reader through the theme, hints, and gameplay experience without confusion. The use of specific examples, such as the list of words and the spangram, enhances understanding. The article is well-written and accessible to a general audience interested in games.

Source quality

The article does not cite any external sources or provide attribution for the information it presents about the game. The reliance on personal experience and the lack of diverse sources or official statements from the New York Times Games section may affect the perceived reliability. However, the author's familiarity with the game suggests some level of authority, though this is not explicitly established within the text.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of methodology and source disclosure. It does not explain how the information was gathered, nor does it reference any external sources or official New York Times statements. This absence of transparency could impact reader trust, as the basis for the claims is not clearly outlined or verified against authoritative sources.