- 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 Yoninah (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Horizon (store)
- ... that Canadian department store chain Eaton's tried to create a discount spin-off called Horizon? National Post, McQueen, pages 172-173
- ALT1:... that Canadian retailer Horizon hoped help from American chain J. C. Penney would save it from collapse? National Post
- ALT2:... that Canadian discount chain Horizon is said to have taken sales from its parent brand, Eaton's? National Post
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Flushing River
- Comment: My first DYK nomination since 2013. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Created by Zanimum (talk). Self-nominated at 00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC).
- @Zanimum: This is more of a comment rather than a review, but I'm not sure if any of the three hooks proposed above would appeal to readers outside North America. ALT1 (which I've revised slightly to fix grammatical issues) might be the best option since J. C. Penney is at least a pretty well-known retail brand, but without additional context with regards to its financial failure the interest concerns remain. I've also fixed the pipe links to Horizon since they were linking to the horizon article rather than the one for the store. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: As a Canadian, well Torontonian, I can see why Eaton's was used in the hook (check out Toronto Eaton Centre) but I have to agree with Narutolovehinata5. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the hooks are interesting, but I'm biased since I'm Canadian. Maybe something like this would be more appealing to a global audience:
- ALT3: ... that Horizon was once called "the most automated self-service store in Canada"?
- ALT4: ... that Horizon, once called "the most automated self-service store in Canada", went defunct less than seven years after it opened? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think those are much better. Narutolovehinata5 were you planning on reviewing this or can I? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- At first it was only intended as a comment and I didn't plan on reviewing the article, but given the article isn't that long I think I can review this. I'll just wait for the nominator to comment on the above discussion before proceeding. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi all! Yes, I'm plenty content with ALT3 or ALT4. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The article meets DYK requirements, is adequately sourced, and no close paraphrasing was found. A QPQ has been done. ALT4 is my preference, and I'm assuming good faith for the sources as I have no access to it, but it would probably be a good idea to duplicate the "less than seven years" art in the article text since I'm not sure if WP:CALC would be enough to let it pass in the article's current state. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, Narutolovehinata5, I wasn't keeping an eye on this thread. I've added "less than seven years" to the lede/lead, does that work? I can upload the article about self-service temporarily to a file hosting site, if that's of interest. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that should be unnecessary: at DYK it's common practice to assume good faith in the sources used for an article if they're inaccessible, unless there's good reason to doubt their reliability. Copying the "seven years" to the lede is okay, but it might also be a good idea to mention it somewhere in the article body (with a reference, probably any source that mentions both the founding and closing years) just to make sure others at DYK won't have problems with accuracy. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Updated, Narutolovehinata5. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, ALT4 is good to go, with ALT3 allowed as a backup in case ALT4 ends up being unsuitable for whatever reason. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Updated, Narutolovehinata5. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that should be unnecessary: at DYK it's common practice to assume good faith in the sources used for an article if they're inaccessible, unless there's good reason to doubt their reliability. Copying the "seven years" to the lede is okay, but it might also be a good idea to mention it somewhere in the article body (with a reference, probably any source that mentions both the founding and closing years) just to make sure others at DYK won't have problems with accuracy. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, Narutolovehinata5, I wasn't keeping an eye on this thread. I've added "less than seven years" to the lede/lead, does that work? I can upload the article about self-service temporarily to a file hosting site, if that's of interest. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi all! Yes, I'm plenty content with ALT3 or ALT4. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- At first it was only intended as a comment and I didn't plan on reviewing the article, but given the article isn't that long I think I can review this. I'll just wait for the nominator to comment on the above discussion before proceeding. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
