Template:Did you know nominations/Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility

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 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility

edit
The business park in Washington State, a former nuclear plant, where the Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility is located
The business park in Washington State, a former nuclear plant, where the Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility is located
  • New, in time, sourced, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Bri, the article is too short: 1268 characters, needs to be at least 1500. Conversely, ALT0 is too long: 209 characters, needs to be <200. How about cutting it down to:
ALT0a: ... that Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility uses space leased from the government at a former nuclear power plant known as "Whoops!"?
Meanwhile, striking ALT1, which is not explicitly backed up by the source, and does not appear in the article (just because they installed more equipment to make power doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't produce the needed amount before). --Usernameunique (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's another "whoops", thanks for reviewing, I'll add a bit to make it a legal DYK length. Am fine with your proposed hook ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: DYKCheck says it's over 1600 characters now. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Approving ALT0a. Though proposed by me, it is a chopped down version of ALT0 that introduces no new facts. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have pulled this from prep as it was the company that built the plant that was known as "Whoopsi", not the plant itself. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That is technically correct although the general public often refers to Satsop as "Whoops" e.g. [6] and [7]. Even professionals slip into that usage like [8]. But for the main page I suppose it should be corrected. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Bri, you're going to need to propose a new hook, then, and make whatever corrections and source additions are necessary to the article and new hook. (I've struck ALT0a, since it was problematic.) Please be sure to post here when you're ready; if it's going to take you longer than the standard seven days, let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Proposing the tweaked hook above. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check ALT2 hook. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: The building and not builder. Honestly, removal of the last note and stopping at "a former nuclear power plant" seems better as a hook. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with TheGridExe that the "Whoops" bit of the hook is irrelevant, and some other aspects of ALT2 are also unsatisfactory so I am amending it to ALT3
  • Withdrawing ALT2; proposing ALT4 blending the original hook with ALT3, which is pretty darn good. However, I feel that very few people outside of the Aberdeen–Olympia corridor (just made that up) even know what a Satsop is, other than sounding a little like Sasquatch. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Approving ALT4 and otherwise relying on the original review. The image is unsuitable for use as it does not appear in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)