Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Galco's Soda Pop Stop

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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Galco's Soda Pop Stop

[edit]
Galco's Soda Pop Stop
Galco's Soda Pop Stop

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 04:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - n Per WP:DAILYMAIL, an RfC in 2017, the Daily Mail source is unusable for the entire article, and the PAPER article just says that Coke and Pepsi are not "in sight". The first book source in the article for the hook does not cite the coke/pepsi not being available, and the second one only has Pepsi. Is there an alternative you could use that would mention coke in a more direct way?
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: It seems pretty obvious that the hook is correct and it should be easy to find a different source to take its place. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on this one too. Really interesting article, @Michael Barera:! Nomader (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Nomader. I believe I've addressed your concerns now. The original remark about Coke and Pepsi was misleading, as Galco's appears to stock Mexican-made (with sugar cane) versions of both sodas, but not the "traditional" American versions of these drinks. Therefore, I think it is simpler and clearer to simply omit this from the hook. Please let me know if this needs more work. Thanks again for the review! Michael Barera (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey Michael! @Michael Barera: ping you again here. The sources conflict each other-- BoingBoing says 700, but the book only says 500... let me know if you figure out a fix! Nomader (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nomader. The Boing Boing article is from 2016, while the book is from 2010, so I'm assuming that the shop has grown that much in those six years. This seems to be true of the other sources: the only other one that said 700+ was the Daily Mail article (from 2017), while the 500 (and 250) citations are from sources 5-10 years old, generally. Does this make sense? Michael Barera (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Got it, that makes sense and seems to match up with everything else I've reviewed in the article. I've approved the hook, but if you could modify it so only the Boing Boing article is cited in the article, that would be terrific. Great work @Michael Barera:! Nomader (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks so much for your review! Michael Barera (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)