Template:Did you know nominations/Davolls General Store

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Davolls General Store

Davolls General Store
Davolls General Store

Created by AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Davolls General Store; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • The page is well written, is correctly sourced and has no neutrality or copyvio issues. The hook is supported by the source provided. Toadboy123 (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@AdmiralAckbar1977 and Toadboy123: A few thoughts. The article suffers badly from WP:OVERCITE. We should aloo try to avoid citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. The lead is three sentences but it has eleven citations. the claims of oldest are cited to local sources. I did have a look at the Boston Globe article and they make no such claims about "oldest". A hook will work with the years in operation which I believe is 230, or the year of establishment 1793. I think we might consider a new hook because the "oldest" is cited to Edible Southeastern Massachusetts and Only in Your State. Bruxton (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Bruxton:, would you be more comfortable with something like "Did you know Davolls General Store has been in continuous operation since 1793? Or, instead of since 1793, for the last 230 years? AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@AdmiralAckbar1977, I would suggest that you go for this hook, as it clarifies the point made by @Bruxton. Toadboy123 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is the ALT you have proposed, I have only formatted. It is accurate and supported and I hope others think it is interesting. Bruxton (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@AdmiralAckbar1977, Toadboy123, and Bruxton: I have demoted this hook from Prep, because a section of this article has now been tagged for using a list where it should use prose. I could be convinced that the "Ownership" section should remain as is, as long as a bit more prose is incorporated in the "History" section. At the moment, the History section is very dense, and there is room to expand it in a more reader-friendly way that is easier to follow. (Quite frankly I'm a bit surprised that this article was already submitted for GA as is; it actually doesn't feel "complete" yet.) BTW, you may want to check out what WP:MOS says about hyphens vs. dashes; I see some hyphens used inappropriately. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Issue with tag inside of article still needs to be resolved. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
without movement in nearly a month, it's probably time for this nomination to be closed up. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 16:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)