Jump to content

Talk:Whitley Furniture Galleries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by DirtyHarry991 talk 00:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Johnson524 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Whitley Furniture Galleries; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article is new enough and long enough, and is well sourced. QPQ done. Earwig didn't flag anything, and a spot check of paywalled sources showed no issues. (@Johnson524: - this doesn't affect the DYK nom, but zebulonbuildings.com appears to be offline. If there's any way to find archived copies of those documents you have sourced to it that'd be great for future access.) The hooks are interesting, though the source for ALT0 that I was able to access says an estimated 8 to 15 thousand attendees. "Up to fifteen fold" is therefore accurate, but that's a big difference between the low and high ends of the estimate. The article also says the population was "increased ten times over", so that discrepancy makes me hesitant to sign off on the present wording. ALT1 is sourced and in my opinion a little more interesting, so it is my preference. However, I'd prefer a wording change from "would close" to "closed".
  • With all of that said, this is my first DYK review, so per the instructions for new reviewers, I'd be appreciative of a second set of eyes on this to make sure I covered all bases before marking it good to go, thanks! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrOrinScrivello: Thank you for the review! For your first one, this was very detailed and well organized, so well done 🙂 I'm taking your advice and changing "would close" to "closed," and archiving all 18 sources on the page to prevent further link rot. As for your concerns about ALT0, I figured including "up to" in front of the top estimate could work, but I've toned it done to just "more than eight-fold," as there is a pretty large gap in estimates like you pointed out. Hope this addresses your concerns and thank you again, cheers! Johnson524 03:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrOrinScrivello: Review looks good, though you should say something about whether the article is written from a neutral point of view, especially when the article is about a business. From a quick skim, nothing in the article or blurbs makes me think this is non-neutral or promotional, just some cool history of a small town. Looks good to me. If you're happy with the modified blurbs above, you're welcome to approve the submission. — Wug·a·po·des 18:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice, I'll remember that. And @Johnson524: thanks for the kind words as well. The changes look good to me, this is good to go! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Reconrabbit 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Whitley Furniture Galleries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, my name is Reconrabbit, and I'm going to be reviewing this article. Please give me some time to complete a source check following the start of this review - I'll be making some minor tweaks to the article to get it in line with the WP:MOS, but there will probably be a few things that I'll ask you to address before the close. Reconrabbit 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: Thank you so much!! This article is mostly cited using newspaper clippings acquired from Wikipedia Library, and at least one of the citations had died since I wrote the page, and can only be accessed through the archive link. Because of these reasons, I am so grateful you decided to still review the page 😄 To access any of the newspaper clippings for free, replace the beginning of the url with "http://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/". Cheers! Johnson524 03:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see! I'll take a look later. I'll be able to access the Wikipedia Library in 2 weeks exactly but will do my best to review the sources with the methods available. Reconrabbit 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention to each of these corrections. I've gone through the non-newspapers.com links - can you email me the following articles so that I can check them? Otherwise you'll have to wait another week to finish this review. 1 6 Reconrabbit 13:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reconrabbit: Sorry for not conveying this earlier, but I couldn't find a way to send these citation snippets for you to review 😅 Since its been a little over a week now, can you review them yet, or do you still need a little bit more time? If you do that's perfectly fine, and I'm sorry for the delays on my end in getting this review completed. Cheers! Johnson524 11:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine! I'll try to ask around for help - it turns out my account is only 5 months old, not 6, which was a mistake on my part. You'll be informed as soon as I can get it done. Reconrabbit 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm Tell on the Wikipedia discord server sent me the snippets I needed. Everything looks in order! Reconrabbit 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All eight buildings part of the galleries: A little awkward phrasing. Were there other parts of the galleries that weren't buildings? Can this be clarified?
     Done How does The eight buildings which made up the galleries sound? Johnson524 11:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds great. Reconrabbit 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "R.J. Whitley as the owner/president": Was he both owner and president? What's the intended title?
     Done The slash is a little weird, but he was both, so how does owner and president sound? Johnson524 11:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good way to do it. Reconrabbit 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to the companies their products were from: smaller and local companies were often chosen, but some larger brands including Barcalounger, Bassett Furniture, and La-Z-Boy were also offered.: Something about this is off. It might be better to completely omit the "In regards to..."
     Done Wow, looking back, that was worded really poorly: how does Product was often sourced from smaller, local companies, but some larger brands including Barcalounger, Bassett Furniture, and La-Z-Boy were also sold. sound? Johnson524 11:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's another way of doing it I didn't think of, sounds great. Reconrabbit 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some services the business offered were included complete interior design: Is "included" or "were" the intended word to start this short list?
     Done Nice typo catch! I think included was the word I was going for. Johnson524 11:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this number later grew to where product departments with individual managers were later needed: It might help to clarify that "this number" refers to the amount of salesmen employed.
     Done Rearranged the short paragraph to where information is better grouped with each other. Johnson524 11:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The duo: I don't know if this fits into the encyclopedic style.
     Done Does "two" work better? Johnson524 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Closure" heading can get lost in the text because of how small it is. I would recommend making it sub-heading level 1 instead of 2.
     Done Johnson524 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    I've not yet looked at the newspapers.com articles. Will update soon. Reconrabbit 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Any further broadening of the scope of this article would probably require the use of less reliable resources such as press releases, etc.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Any historical images of the location or R.J. Whitley would be great for this article, but the addition of such are probably out of the scope of this review.

Source Checks:

  • [1] checkY
  • [2] checkY
  • [3] checkY
  • [4] checkY
  • [6] checkY
  • [12] checkY
  • [13] checkY
  • [14] ☒N This states that "The store is holding a sale until all of its warehouses are emptied of the remaining furniture," but not that the product was gone by late February, unless that's in the video that I can't watch without having an account.
     Done Clarified. This date came from the date of the citation, but was used incorrectly in the sentence. Good catch! Johnson524 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [15] checkY
Pass or Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whitley_Furniture_Galleries&oldid=1222048032"