Template:Did you know nominations/Gateway Center (Brooklyn)
- 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 ssт✈(discuss) 14:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
ALT4 promoted
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Gateway Center (Brooklyn)
[edit]- ...
that for over 30 years, planners tried to develop a landfill in Brooklyn, New York, but eventually built the Gateway Center shopping mall instead? - ALT1: ...
that for over 30 years, planners tried to develop over a landfill in Brooklyn, New York, but eventually built the Gateway Center shopping mall instead? - ALT2:
... that the Gateway Center shopping mall in Brooklyn, New York, is built over a landfill?
Created by Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 17:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC).
New and long enough, checks for copyvio reveals no problems (e.g. [1]), all paragraphs have inline citations.
- Content of the hook does not appear to be backed by an inline citation to a reliable source in the article. The article states that the mall is located on a former landfill, but does not appear to mention anything about planners trying to develop a landfill over the course of thirty years. Also, the article states, "The Milford Street Landfill existed on the site from the 1930s to 1950", that the "area became the Fresh Creek Urban Renewal Area in 1967" and was later acquired by a company for "mixed-income housing construction", but again, nothing about plans to develop a landfill over the course of thirty years. Also, a QPQ review still needs to be performed. North America1000 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Thanks. Please see alt1/alt2 above and tell me if you like it. I will do a QPQ ASAP. epic genius (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Regarding ALT1, stating this directly in the article with inline citations to reliable sources needs to be present, as per WP:WIADYK #3, "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article". Upon reviewing this source, it states that the Fresh Creek Urban Renewal Plan of 1967 "proposed mixed residential, commercial and community facility uses and parks on large superblocks, comparable to neighboring Starrett City", which serves to verify the start date for the beginning of the thirty-year time period you are referring to. I find ALT2 to be somewhat lacking in creating intrigue as worded. North America1000 03:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Cool. So I take it you approve of ALT1 over ALT2? (It isn't 30 continuous years, but well, since 30 years ago, about the same, right...?) epic genius (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Yes, but now you have stated that it has not been 30 continuous years, but then state "since 30 years ago". If this is the case, then ALT1 needs revision, along with a statement of such in the article and citations as per the above. As a suggestion for rewording, here's an ALT below, but again, it needs to be in the article and sourced. North America1000 03:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Cool. So I take it you approve of ALT1 over ALT2? (It isn't 30 continuous years, but well, since 30 years ago, about the same, right...?) epic genius (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Regarding ALT1, stating this directly in the article with inline citations to reliable sources needs to be present, as per WP:WIADYK #3, "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article". Upon reviewing this source, it states that the Fresh Creek Urban Renewal Plan of 1967 "proposed mixed residential, commercial and community facility uses and parks on large superblocks, comparable to neighboring Starrett City", which serves to verify the start date for the beginning of the thirty-year time period you are referring to. I find ALT2 to be somewhat lacking in creating intrigue as worded. North America1000 03:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Thanks. Please see alt1/alt2 above and tell me if you like it. I will do a QPQ ASAP. epic genius (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- ALT3
...that at various times for over 30 years, planners tried to develop over a former landfill in Brooklyn, New York, but eventually built the Gateway Center shopping mall instead?
- @Northamerica1000: ALT3, I assume, has gone to the park or something. Anyway, I like ALT4, but I didn't write that at first because I worried that it would be too long. epic genius (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Rewrote to ALT3 above. It's within the limit at 175 characters; the maximum is "fewer than about 200 characters", as per the rules. North America1000 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh no, now my joke doesn't make sense. :( Anyway, good to know that ALT3 (or 4) is within character limit. I will do QPQ tomorrow, since it's really late where I live. epic genius (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: QPQ is done. epic genius (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- ALT3
- ALT4: ... that the Gateway Center shopping mall in Brooklyn, New York, is built on a former landfill?
Good to go for ALT4, which is a slight variation of ALT2 adding the word "former", because the landfill was eventually closed and no development occurred thereafter for considerable time. North America1000 03:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
