- 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 SL93 talk 22:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Republic Drug Store
Republic Drug Store in right half of Slagle Building
- ... that the Republic Drug Store (building pictured) was formed from the consolidation of an estate and its competition?
- Source: (REF 2) Washington State Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation "Slagle house" article 4th & 5th Paragraphs. "In 1904 he was sent to Republic ... to liquidate a drugstore that made up part of an estate"
(REF 1)
Washington SP Slagle, Jesse W. & Elizabeth, House article of the National Register of Historic Places; Sect 8 pages 2-3
- ALT1: ... that the Republic Drug Store (building pictured) was thought to be Washington state's oldest continually family run drugstore in 2003? Source: Source: Craig, J. (June 24, 2003). "Forecast calls for keen observer". The Spokesman-Review. Vol. 121, no. 14. p. B6. "...its believed to be the oldest drugstore in continuous family ownership in Washington..."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Scybalium fungiforme
- Comment: While the "Slagle house" article is in wordpress, it was published by an official part of the Washington State government, the Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation and thus fulfils notability criteria. The information is also found in the Washington SP Slagle, Jesse W. & Elizabeth, House article of the National Register of Historic Places; Sect 8 page 3
Moved to mainspace by
Kevmin (
talk).
Number of QPQs required:
1. Nominator has 356 past nominations.
Kevmin § 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
Policy compliance:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
The article was moved to the mainspace on August 3, and nominated on the same day. Length and sourcing are adequate. No plagiarism was detected. All images used in the article have a free license on the Commons. The nominated image is used in the article, is clear at a low resolution and enhances the hook. QPQ requirement is complete. The hooks are interesting, mentioned and cited in the article, and verified by the sources. My only concern is the extensive in-depth coverage of the Department of justice investigation. Could this be simplified or further paraphrased? The article appears to give a lot of weight to the investigation, making the article imbalanced due to WP:RECENTISM. Otherise I noted no concerns, and this is a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Flibirigit (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: I have gone through and trimmed down the amount of prose in the investigation section for clarity and brevity. The section is now under 1/3 of the total article prose.--Kevmin § 14:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Aprroving nomination with the trimmed prose for the investigation. Nomination adheres to all other DYK review as per my review above. Flibirigit (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- ?
The article was moved to the mainspace on August 3, and nominated on the same day. Length and sourcing are adequate. No plagiarism was detected. All images used in the article have a free license on the Commons. The nominated image is used in the article, is clear at a low resolution and enhances the hook. QPQ requirement is complete. The hooks are interesting, mentioned and cited in the article, and verified by the sources. My only concern is the extensive in-depth coverage of the Department of justice investigation. Could this be simplified or further paraphrased? The article appears to give a lot of weight to the investigation, making the article imbalanced due to WP:RECENTISM. Otherise I noted no concerns, and this is a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Flibirigit (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
