Template:Did you know nominations/Tad's Steaks

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 Bruxton talk 00:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Tad's Steaks

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Tad's Steaks offered "tasty food, low prices, service with a grunt"?

• Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=VdRQYCi-SX8C&pg=PA38&dq=%27tad%27s+steaks%27&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigyLTspIOGAxWPhYkEHepqAhsQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q='tad's%20steaks'&f=false

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Railway Building
• Comment: This was inspired by Sammi Brie's recent Ground Round submission. And, not really a COI, but I do have fond memories of my father taking me to lunch at the Union Square Tad's when I was a kid and he brought me to work with him.

Created by RoySmith (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 38 past nominations.

RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Per WP:NYPOST, the NY Post is a generally unreliable source. Much as I don't agree with the decision, there was a consensus that the NYP isn't reliable. I suggest replacing it.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @RoySmith: Nice work. There is only one issue with this nomination, which I've mentioned above. Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, NY Post references removed, thanks for the review. RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Good to go now. Epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Epicgenius I hope you don't mind, but I've done a bit more work on this since your review. Please let me know if I've introduced any new issues. RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for the heads up. You cite this Forbes contributor blog (which is not really reliable per WP:FORBESCON), but it's used for commentary and not for factual info. I see no other issues. Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Epicgenius: WP:FORBESCON is red so we should replace before promotion. It is used for three citations and some give specific information which could be contested. Bruxton (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I re-cited one to a different source, removed another, and the third is an attributed opinion, so I think it's OK. The author can reasonable be considered a WP:EXPERTSPS RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)