Talk:Milkrun

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 Bruxton talk 22:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Panamitsu (talk). Self-nominated at 02:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Milkrun; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - No.
  • Interesting: No - No.

QPQ: No - Not done.
Overall: Article created on 16 February, and meets the length requirement (though it is rather short and should be expanded). All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for. Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. There are no obvious neutrality issues. The hook does not strictly speaking meet the requirement of being cited in the article no later than the end of the sentence, but this is rather academic as I don't find it interesting either. QPQ has not been done. Some comments on the content:

  • That month they also started selling Alcohol with the hope that it would improve Milkrun's losses. – three things here. Firstly, "alcohol" should not have a capital A. Secondly, did they start selling alcohol or delivering it? Thirdly, "also"? The body has not yet stated what the business model was prior to this.
  • In February 2023 Milkrun laid off 20% of its staff due to financial difficulties. – that's not quite what the cited sources say. They say that Milkrun started laying off staff in February and that they would lay off 20% of staff. That doesn't mean that the entirety of those 20% were laid off in February, specifically.
  • aswell – typo.
  • In May 2023, two months after closure – that seems like a contradiction seeing as it seems to have closed in mid-April. The cited source also says "less than two months".
  • Woolworths merged the customer bases of Milkrun and Metro60, Woolworths' competitor, and rebranded Metro60 to Milkrun. – this needs to be rephrased for clarity. If I understand it correctly, Metro60 competed against Milkrun, and was run by Woolworths. The current phrasing, "Woolworths' competitor", can easily be parsed as Metro60 competing against Woolworths.
  • Service rolled out to other regions in the months after. – the cited source states that, as of July when it was published, this was the plan. Not that it happened after that.

Ping Panamitsu. TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TompaDompa:, Thanks, I really appreciate your hard work reviewing the article. I believe I've fixed all the issues you've found in the article.
For the hook, I believe that going out of business and then relaunching a few months later is interesting, as usually companies stay closed, but I'm happy to find a new hook. I'm a bit confused about the hook not being in the body. While it doesn't specifically say that it was launched months later, it does say that it closed in May and launched in New Zealand in July. Does that not count? For sourcing, I'm a bit confused because the source does say that it went out of business in April and then launched in New Zealand in July, which is "months later". —Panamitsu (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The technicality I'm referring to is one of reference placement—the facts of the hook need to be cited in the article no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear (see WP:DYKHFC). That is to say, if the facts of the hook are presented in two consecutive sentences, and come from the same source, the source needs to be cited at the end of both sentences (not just the second one). Which is a bit silly, granted.
Anyway, the necessary changes to the article content have been done, as has QPQ. All that remains is a better hook. TompaDompa (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see now; thanks for the explanation. Here is ALT1:
"... that Milkrun originally promised 10 minute grocery deliveries?"
Source: https://www.smh.com.au/business/entrepreneurship/losing-10-an-order-grocery-app-milkrun-drops-rapid-delivery-pledge-to-curb-losses-20220624-p5awg9.html
—Panamitsu (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think that's even less interesting. TompaDompa (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite surprised by that. Normally deliveries take several days. Do you have any suggestions from the article for what could be used instead? —Panamitsu (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. If you are out of ideas for hooks, you can by all means request a second opinion; the hook is the only thing left, and I won't object if somebody else finds the hook interesting even if I do not. TompaDompa (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing only the hooks, I consider both sufficiently interesting for use on DYK. If I could get my groceries delivered in only 10 minutes, I'd be flabbergasted (I suppose it makes sense that they didn't actually deliver on that promise). I prefer the substance of ALT0 though I would encourage rephrasing it to an ALT2:
  • ... that only months after going out of business, Milkrun relaunched?
That way, the hook doesn't 'spoil the ending' right off the bat. Of course, fixing WP:DYKHFC will be necessary if that's still a problem.
I'm not 100% sure how this goes from here; with the hook being the only thing left, do I add an "approved" icon, or does TompaDompa? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you approve the hook, you add the icon (and also check the hook's sourcing). TompaDompa (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Panamitsu: What do you think of the ALT2 rephrasing above (that I suggested)? Additionally, to resolve WP:DYKHFC, please place citations at the end of the sentences that end "citing worsening economic conditions" and "in Wellington and central Auckland" (I recognize that may mean having the same citation appended to the ends of two sentences in a row; although usual Wikipedia rules allow for a single citations to flow backwards across multiple sentences, for precision and on account of the potentially heightened attention to a hook fact, DYK rules require a citation at the end of each sentence supporting a hook). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps an ALT3: "... that 18 months after launching Milkrun ran out of business, but a few months later it was running again?" (This would probably require adding the '18 months' fact to the article, which if memory serves appears in one of the sources.) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Could ALT3 be modified further? "Ran out of business" is strange wording to some of us, maybe it's only standard phrasing in some parts of the world? What about "closed down" or "went out of business"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fair suggestion (alas, no tripling of "run"/"ran"). That brings us to ALT4:
  • ... that 18 months after launching, Milkrun went out of business, but a few months later it was running again?
P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ALT2 looks very good. Unfortunately I cannot understand WP:DYKHFC. The wording does not make any sense to me. I've added some more citations but I'm not sure if that's fixed it. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Panamitsu: WP:DYKHFC means (and apologies if my explanation isn't any better) that for a hook to be approved, the facts it contains must be stated in the body text of an article in sentences that have citations verifying those facts no later than the end of those sentences. The way you have edited the page, WP:DYKHFC is now fulfilled, as there are verifying citations at the end of the clauses A few months later, in April, Milkrun closed, citing worsening economic conditions. and By July Milkrun was launched in New Zealand,, verifying that Milkrun relaunched months after it closed (from April to July).
Though not mandatory, if you expand the first sentence to be In April, just 18 months after it initially launched, Milkrun closed, citing worsening economic conditions., I will be able to approve both ALT2 and ALT4 as well. What do you think? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes thanks it makes sense now! I've used your suggestion, and I think your hooks look good. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Panamitsu: Thanks for bearing with one additional ask: I forgot that the Barrett article doesn't mention that Milkrun launched ~18 months before it folded. That's in the Shaw article. If you add that source (Shaw, "Countdown launches failed grocery delivery service Milkrun") to the end of the same sentence, I can approve ALT4 along with ALT2. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh whoops, sorry I should've checked that. Done now. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approval of specifically ALT2 and ALT4. 02:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milkrun&oldid=1212874340"