Yes, it's grammatically fine, if semantically distinct.
For how it sounds to native speakers, a Corpus of Contemporary American English search for "GET * wrong" led me to the phrase "got it wrong," and I found several results where the entity isn't a person:
we think the United States had got it wrong (Fox News Sunday, Interview with H.R. McMaster, December 3, 2017).
the media has got it wrong (Fox News, January 17, 2017)
the polls got it wrong (The Boston Globe, "Pundits, politicians failed to detect depth of Trump's support," November 9, 2016)
Abigail R. Montcrieff, Reincarnating the " Major Questions " Exception to Chevron Deference as a Doctrine of Noninterference (Or Why Massachusetts v. EPA Got It Wrong), 60 Admin. L. Rev. 593 (2008).
That bill got it wrong. (Fox News, "Interview With Fred and Jeri Thompson," July 15, 2009)
Especially in the last three examples, inanimate objects get something wrong. In these instances, the actual people responsible are implied: pollsters got the polls wrong, the Supreme Court got Massachusetts v. EPA wrong, and legislators got the bill wrong. Why? Perhaps it is convenient to focus on the inanimate object, since the alleged error is most clear in the object itself. That compares favorably to your own example - the author may not even know who made the sign, but alleges the sign is wrong. It's a small step to then say, "The building signs get standard English phrases wrong," as if the sign commits the error each time it is read.
There are no grammatical issues with an inanimate object serving as a subject here. In this case, the usage is colloquial, which is why it tends to appear in verbal transcripts or in asides within titles. If you want to label the usage rhetorically, it's a kind of anthropomorphism, which gives an inanimate object human qualities.