Jump to content

Talk:Anderson's Grocery

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Anderson's Grocery sign on Clarke Avenue
Anderson's Grocery sign on Clarke Avenue
  • ... that in its centennial year Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) was one of only 10 small chain groceries 100 years or older?
  • Source: Craig, john (June 25, 2000). "A century in the family". The Spokesman-Review. Spokesman Review, Jun 6, 2000. Page B1 ...able to identify about 10 small grocery chains across the county that have been in business 100 years or more
  • ALT1: ... that during its over 100 years of business Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) used to have egg and wool bartering, grain milling, and vehicle fueling? Source: Spokesman Review, Jun 6, 2000. Page B1 & B5
  • ALT2: ... that with a full 1955 rebuild and 1985 expansion, Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) had never burned down with the rest of republic? Source: Spokesman Review, Jun 6, 2000. Page B5 They coped with devastating fires- Anderson's is one of the few businesses to never burn down... & ...are located where the tiny wood frame building originally stood. The store was rebuilt in 1955 and expanded and renovated in 1985.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Satin berrypecker
Moved to mainspace by Kevmin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 353 past nominations.

Kevmin § 19:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Starting review
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - ?
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Valereee (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a cn for an unsourced statement. There's a period missing at the end of the same sentence, maybe you got distracted just then?I'm also not a huge fan of any of the hooks, I feel like they could be tightened. For instance, what does have been rebuilt or expanded have to do with burning down? The hook seems to be relating the two. "Over its century plus of business...formerly offered" seems awkward...why does it matter that it was a century of business? Maybe something like 'that the nearly 125-year-old Anderson's Grocery used to offer' or something? I like the ALT0 idea a lot, but is it possible to update? We're basically saying that in 2000 it was blah blah blah. It's now 2024, is it still one of ten? Also "was one of only 10 small chain groceries 100 years or older?" feels awkward, it feels like it should be "was one of only 10 small chain groceries 100 years old or older?" or "at least a century in business" or something. Valereee (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I have to work with what sources are out there, hence the hooks that have been provided. We have a RS that discusses the Centennial, we do not have a RS thats keeping a running tally of the store now being 122yo, 123yo, 124. As such i erred on the side of DYK rules requiring sources for everything and noted the Centennial.
The expansion hook is relevant to Republic (like most western towns) almost totally burnt down several times, Andersons got lucky and didnt, but the original building has still been destroyed with the rebuild and the expansion. so yes the hook IS relating the two based on the noted fire history of the West
I reworded the three hooks a bit to combat verbosity. I also added the missing citation.--Kevmin § 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the kinds of things I was thinking are like:

ALT0a: * ... that in its centennial year, Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) was said to be one of only 10 US small grocery chains still in business after 100 years or more? '100 years or older' just feels awkward

ALT1a: ... that Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) once bartered with customers for eggs and wool and offered grain milling? Vehicle fueling doesn't seem that interesting, Kroger's does it now

ALT2a: ... that unlike most of Republic, Washington, during its first hundred years of business, Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) never burned?

ALT2b:... that Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) was rebuilt in 1955, but not because it, unlike most of Republic, Washington, had burned? I get that it's interesting that the building has been rebuilt for a reason other than typical for the area, and that so yes it's related, but we aren't saying that in ALT2. We're just stating two apparently unrelated facts. We need to either make the connection or make it so intriguing that there doesn't seem to be a connection that people's interest is piqued.

Valereee (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All four massaged alts look good and are factual to the souring. I would say I most like Alt0a and alt2a. --00:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to approve one or more of the tweaked hooks. Valereee (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: @Kevmin: I do like ALT0a or ALT2a best, not a big fan of the other two--ALT2b is just a bit confusing. ALT0a could also be shortened to "...was one of only 10 US small grocery chains over 100 years old".
Also: is the missing apostrophe and uneven capitalization in Andersons Grocery, A family Tradition intentional? Anderson's is missing the apostrophe in a couple of other places in the prose; please make sure one spelling is chosen and stuck with (other than when listed as a historical name) and matches the article title. – TCMemoire 13:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apostrophes added to areas where missing, (I've always had a bad habit of skipping them when typing). The title case structuring for "Andersons Grocery, A family Tradition" is purposeful as the store itself uses title case with modified capital A.--Kevmin § 15:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, Kevmin, and TCMemoire: Looks like the source attributes to the Food Marketing Institute – could this hook do so as well? (Shameless plug to my essay on this topic.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to that in the hook, as the major criticism @Valereee: gave initially revolved around verbosity. The article itself already reflects the source of the Spokesman-Review information as FMI.--Kevmin § 23:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't state that a fact is true in wikivoice if the source you're citing isn't willing to do so, it's an exaggeration of the veracity of the information. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* This is a pendantic level of quibbling that should not be holding up nominations (and also not a core DYK rule). But since you are holding up the nomination:

ALT0B: * ... that in its centennial year, Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) was said to be one of only 10 US small grocery's over 100 years old?

Sorry to push yet more grammar fixes but "groceries" is misspelled, the order of its adjectives should be flipped, and "X in X" statements should be congruent with number case. Here:

ALT0C: * ... that in its centennial year, Anderson's Grocery (sign pictured) was said to be 1 of only 10 small US groceries over 100 years old?

@Kevmin, Valereee, and Theleekycauldron: All gucci? Now watch this hook not even get used – TCMemoire 17:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never claimed perfectin at writing the language, :D This looks great to me.--Kevmin § 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: Sorry, thought this one had been given a tick already :) – TCMemoire 09:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

notability tag

[edit]

SounderBruce I reverted the notability tag as I feel the store has enough coverage in sources to full fill wp:Local criteria at the least, and with the industry award, Mention on the US House of representatives floor, soil contamination/endangering the city wells and being the oldest continually operating business in Republic it merits the article.--Kevmin § 00:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, as there is no focused coverage from a newspaper outside of Eastern Washington that would help it meet GNG. A House floor mention is a typical display of small-town pride for a congressperson and can be given for just about every achievement. The Ecology reports might qualify it but that would also confer notability on thousands of industrial sites across the state. SounderBruce 00:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
outside of Eastern Washington This feels inherently coastie biased in position, to be honest. It got significant coverage in the Newspaper of note for the second largest city in the state. Saying that the coverage NEEDS to come from outside eastern WA is the same as sayin all Seattle area businesses are only notable if they are getting significant coverage from Spokane, Portland or Vancouver, anything closer would be too close.--Kevmin § 15:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also applies to anything in Seattle. Per WP:AUD, significant coverage from media outside the immediate local area and especially from the largest publications in a given region are strong indicators of notability. Personally, I'm not a fan of the proliferation of articles about small businesses here either, but there's only so much time to dedicate to fighting over articles. SounderBruce 00:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anderson%27s_Grocery&oldid=1238259812"