Jump to content

Talk:Independent Fisheries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Panamitsu (talk). Self-nominated at 03:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Independent Fisheries; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Comment: Fisheries is one of the major privately-owned fishing companies of New Zealand. It's possible that I'm misreading this, or this is a regional colloquialism, but I think it's best to remove "major" here and to just say "is a privately-owned fishing company of New Zealand". The cited source says "it has grown into one of the country's major privately-owned fishing businesses" which is best described instead by depicting and describing its growth from a suburban fish and chip shop ("humble beginnings as a small fish and chip shop") to three ships and more than 500 staff. So write the lead like this: "Independent Fisheries is a privately-owned fishing company of New Zealand. It started as a suburban fish and chip shop in 1956, became a fishing company in 1960, and grew to acquire three ships, storage facilities, and more than 500 employees." That way, the reader knows what is mean by "major". As for the hook, try something shorter "... that the Independent Fisheries company began as a fish and chip shop?" @Panamitsu: let me know what you think. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Viriditas: That's really interesting. I interpret 'major' as meaning "one of the largest" per the Oxford dictionary which lists a definition of major as "important, serious, or significant". I think removing 'major' may make the hook less surprising. I really like your new lead so I've added it to the article (I modified it a bit). What do you think of the hook 'major' considering the dictionary definition? —Panamitsu (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Panamitsu: There's no dispute over the definition; my issue is that we tend to use adjectives sparingly because they can be used as weasel words and often come across as promotional or detract from the encyclopedic framework. However, I think the facts are on your side in terms of usage in this regard. My personal preference is to show they are major (as I explained up above), not to tell, but there's no right or wrong way to do this. I think whatever way you choose to do this is ultimately your style and choice. I will review in a moment in case someone doesn't get to it before me. Viriditas (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think your proposed hook is quite long. If you don't like the short one up above, how about "... that the big Independent Fisheries company began as a small fish and chip shop?" I think it's amusing because it both alludes to the widely known proverb of "big fish eats small fish", as well as the drawing by Pieter Bruegel.[1] Viriditas (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas: I agree with your sentiment that the hook is too long and concern with "major". I think I've figured out a way to make it shorter while still keeping the aspect that it is a big company, ALT2:
"... that one of the largest fishing companies of New Zealand started as a fish and chips shop?"
—Panamitsu (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is new enough and long enough. It was 3093 char at the time of submission and is now 3326 char. The article appears well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, and copyvio-free. Earwig did identify some material, but it was a false positive for a quote and a description of the legal charges that would be difficult to reword otherwise. I made some copyedits which I would encourage the nominator to review. I think ALT1 is too long for my tastes and I've made note of shorter suggestions up above which appear in the hook length link. I didn't receive a response from the nom so I'm going to pass this as is and hope the closer makes the decision instead. I prefer ALT2. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shadbolt House

[edit]

@Panamitsu: what's the story with the architecture of the Shadbolt House? We don't have anything like that in the states. Might be interesting to find out. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite a strange looking building eh? Unfortunately I haven't managed to find really any information on the architecture. A source[2] says that it was designed by Hollis and Leonard, not sure who that is. There's a surprisingly high amount of coverage on this building so I'll probably create a seperate article for it and maybe we can find out what's going on with the architecture. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independent_Fisheries&oldid=1184682265"