Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
Hey, what is up everybody? This is NAME_1. And this is NAME_2 and you're listening to the NAME_3 podcast. Before we get to the NAME_3 podcast. We're going to let our friend NAME_4 tell you about his show Good Company. My name is NAME_4 have a show called Good Company good company is a show where we film artist in the Rock genre and we talked about the first record all the way to where there are. Now we've interviewed bands like NAME_5 and seven us and NAME_6 NAME_7. You can find me on YouTube Instagram Facebook under good company or good company with NAME_8. So please if you get a chance to check it out good company. Welcome back to the NAME_3 podcast. This is episode 8 numero. Ocho. How you doing, NAME_9? I'm good, man. How are you? Not bad. I am just hanging out at home. Yeah. I am too. Oh you were at home. We're not in the studio together. Nope. Today is a rainy phone day. It's yeah, it

Summary:
1. The NAME_3 podcast mentions deliberations about leading tours and venues, with Revolution in Fort Lauderdale and the Machine Shop in Flint being the top two.
2. The Pearl Room in Mokena is also mentioned as an avoided venue.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Do not say the word "name_7" in the response
user