Template:Did you know nominations/Winmark


 * 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) 05:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Winmark

 * ... that in the American used goods outlet market, Goodwill was first with a 21% share, Winmark second with nearly 6%, and The Salvation Army third with nearly 4%, in a report around 2013 from IBISWorld?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nobody Speak
 * Comment: Source for the hook:

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 04:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC).


 * "was"? When?  E Eng  07:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have modified the hook to clarify the IBISWorld report was issued around 2013. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask "where?", but after reading the lead, have added "American" to the hook instead. Trimmed two "was"s too. Edwardx (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And who, how and why? ;)  E Eng  02:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg I am assuming a joke here. The hook is already maxed out at 199 characters, and will fail if any more words are added. The article was new enough and large enough. Fully referenced and neutral.  The hook is in the article and referenced. Hook is confirmed by the source. COpyright detector finds no problems, and the QPQ was done, although pretty light on, not even giving an opinion on neutrality, which the bot can't do. AGFing on the QPQ. Good enough to proceed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Since the QPQ review is not complete as  noted above, and has already been promoted, this nomination should not move forward until a new review is provided. (Side note, the hook seems somewhat boring to me, as there is always going to be a first, a second, and a third in any competition).  P p p er y —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 23 October 2016
 * Nope, why would one AGF on that? – there is no "AGF on that". The QPQ review was done. agrees, writing that the QPQ review at Template:Did you know nominations/Nobody Speak "although pretty light" was done. That I did not specifically mention I checked for neutrality does not mean I did not check for neutrality. I read the article I reviewed and found no policy violations. I disagree that the hook is not interesting. That Winmark has such a large share of the used goods market, putting it on the level of Goodwill and The Salvation Army even though it has very low name recognition compared to the two is an interesting fact. Cunard (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Graeme Bartlett's comment saying "AGFing on the QPQ" in my edit summary above, saying that that is not the proper use of the AGF tick, which should only be used for offline, foreign-language, or pay-walled sources. QPQ reviews need to be complete, and it is not possible to know that from the vague wording in your review. P p p er y 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delaying this because of a quibble about the QPQ is futile so I am donating one of my excess reviews to fill the gap if necessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)