Talk:Tad's Steaks

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Tad's Steaks offered "tasty food, low prices, service with a grunt"?

• Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=VdRQYCi-SX8C&pg=PA38&dq=%27tad%27s+steaks%27&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigyLTspIOGAxWPhYkEHepqAhsQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q='tad's%20steaks'&f=false

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Railway Building
• Comment: This was inspired by Sammi Brie's recent Ground Round submission. And, not really a COI, but I do have fond memories of my father taking me to lunch at the Union Square Tad's when I was a kid and he brought me to work with him.

Created by RoySmith (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 38 past nominations.

RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Per WP:NYPOST, the NY Post is a generally unreliable source. Much as I don't agree with the decision, there was a consensus that the NYP isn't reliable. I suggest replacing it.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @RoySmith: Nice work. There is only one issue with this nomination, which I've mentioned above. Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, NY Post references removed, thanks for the review. RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Good to go now. Epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Epicgenius I hope you don't mind, but I've done a bit more work on this since your review. Please let me know if I've introduced any new issues. RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for the heads up. You cite this Forbes contributor blog (which is not really reliable per WP:FORBESCON), but it's used for commentary and not for factual info. I see no other issues. Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Epicgenius: WP:FORBESCON is red so we should replace before promotion. It is used for three citations and some give specific information which could be contested. Bruxton (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I re-cited one to a different source, removed another, and the third is an attributed opinion, so I think it's OK. The author can reasonable be considered a WP:EXPERTSPS RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)