Template:Did you know nominations/Farmdrop


 * 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) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Farmdrop

 * ... that Farmdrop saves farmers and fishermen money by eliminating middlemen in the food distribution supply chain? Sources:, ,
 * Reviewed: The American Girls Premiere

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg QPQ done. Article is new and long enough. Hook is of appropriate length and interesting. The only potential issue, Northamerica1000, is I can't see in the three sources cited where it unambiguously states that Farmdrop saves farmers money. The Digital Arts Online source notes that farmers get 70% vs 30% at supermarkets, however, an increase in profit on one line item is not necessarily synonymous with a net saving of money. The hook may not need to be rewritten, and it may be fine; I may just need some personal clarification. LavaBaron (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Check out the alt below. North America1000 23:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that farmers and fishermen earn more money using Farmdrop compared to food distribution supply chains that use middlemen? Sources:, ,
 * North America - sorry but my only issue is that the sources seem to say that farmers are receiving a higher percentage of sales revenue through Farmdrop than traditional distributors but an increase in percent of sales revenue doesn't automatically = earning more money as there are a variety of other factors that may be at work; for instance, are sales volumes through Farmdrop equal to sales volumes through supermarkets? If not, farmers could actually be making less money with Farmdrop even though their revenue cut was higher. Again, I might just be misreading this or not looking at the correct portion of the sources provided; if so, let me know. LavaBaron (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – This source states: "Farmers and producers are given an average of 70 per cent of sale revenue through Farmdrop as opposed to 30 per cent from supermarkets." — This means that producers are earning more using Farmmdrop.
 * – This source states: "...buyers are now being offered better quality and fresher food and local farmers and producers a much fairer financial deal." and "...to provide independent producers with a greater share of the retail price, whilst giving people the best, freshest food, making it a fairer deal for all." — Producers earning a greater share of the retail price, and receiving a fairer financial deal equates to them earning more. They're given more money compared to that received from supermarkets; they're earning more.
 * – I think you're making this much more complex than it actually is. When using Farmdrop, producers are earning more compared to earnings from their products purveyed at supermarkets. It's unclear why you think equal sales volumes via Farmdrop and at supermarkets would be required to confer with increased earnings, or losses for lack of such equality. The sources don't cover your theory, so there's nothing to state about it in the article or in a hook. North America1000 09:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Symbol voting keep.svg Revenue and earnings mean two different things. Revenue is what's earned before deducting the cost of goods while earnings is usually understood (though this point, specifically, could be further split) to be net income. The sources refer to revenue, the hook refers to earnings. It may well be that farmers using Farmdrop also earn more but the sources don't say that and there are so many factors beyond revenue cut that go into calculating earnings I have an issue simply assuming it's true. If it costs me $5 to grow a widget and Farmdrop buys 10 widgets from me for $10 each while Wal-Mart buys 10,000 widgets from me for $6 each, my revenue per unit may be more selling to Farmdrop but I earn more selling to Wal-Mart. However, North America is an experienced editor and I AGF the primary hook, assuming no other editor objects, as being a simple case of my personal ignorance on the question. LavaBaron (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC) I am amending this approval and recusing myself, without prejudice, due to implications in discussion that my approval of this thread might be personally disadvantageous for me. LavaBaron (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to give a full review of nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT2: ... that farmers and fishermen get a better price for their produce using Farmdrop compared to food distribution supply chains that use middlemen?
 * Symbol question.svg I agree with LavaBaron that there is a difference between getting a better price for the product and earning more, so I have proposed ALT2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT2 works for me. North America1000 12:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed since original reviewer has completely withdrawn and that review is to be disregarded. Struck ALT1 per Cwmhiraeth. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT2 adequately paraphrases the idea expressed in the sources, but the way it's written in the article seems to skirt around the point: Farmdrop's service also provides a greater value to area farmers and fishermen compared to other types of food purveyance, because "middlemen" distributors are not used in the supply chain, which is more economical. Would you consider writing in the part about getting a higher percentage (or "a better price"), for their products through Farmdrop, rather than it just being "economical"? QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have copy edited it; see the Overview section. North America1000 05:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But you have just added more words to the sentence while confusing revenue and income, as LavaBaron noted. I suggest you rewrite the sentence and the hook along these lines:
 * ALT3: ... that farmers and fishermen receive a higher percentage of revenue from the Farmdrop online delivery company because no middlemen are involved in the supply chain? Yoninah (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Copy edited more, see diff. Struck ALT2 above in favor of ALT3 above and the below alt. North America1000 22:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ALT4: ... that farmers and fishermen receive a higher percentage of revenue using Farmdrop because no middlemen are involved in the supply chain?
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you. I believe that summarizes the source correctly and ALT4 is a good hook. However, since I helped write it, calling on another reviewer to complete this nomination. Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * : REVIEW COMPLETED - The following review was completed by Esemono 
 * Green check.svg QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/The American Girls Premiere
 * Green check.svg Article created by Northamerica1000 on October 31, 2016 and has 1796 characters (288 words) "readable prose size"
 * Green check.svg NPOV
 * Green check.svg Hook is interesting and sourced with Refs 4 and 6
 * Green check.svg Hook is sourced to :By creating Farmdrop ... local farmers and producers (get) a much fairer financial deal
 * Green check.svg Every paragraph sourced
 * Green check.svg Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found no copyvio
 * Symbol confirmed.svg GTG -- Esemono (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)