Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/New York City FC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

New York City FC

[edit]

Created by Falastur2 (talk), Mosmof (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC).

  • Comment: Don't obfuscate the article link with a different subject. I've proposed ALT1 below to resolve this issue. Mindmatrix 18:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT1: that the New York Mets objected to the plans by New York City FC to build a new stadium within sight of Citi Field?
  • Comment: I was going to nominate this myself until I realised it was already nominated. Personally I would've gone for a pull just about NYCFC being MLS' 20th franchise, and possibly mentioning its ownership. Seems more broad and defining than a comment about the Mets opposing stadium plans, but that's just me. Falastur2 Talk 23:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: ...not to mention that shouldn't it refer to the "FC" on the end? Anyone who hasn't heard of the team launch will not understand why the City itself needs a stadium? Falastur2 Talk 08:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I read it yesterday, but I admit I came back to this page and then realised I was in a rush to leave home to go out (I forgot I would have internet access here as well) and I clearly paid no attention to the alt when I wrote that last comment. You have me, I withdraw the last comment, though I still wonder whether the alt would serve better by commenting on the founding of the club, which is an event which has generated a lot of interest as well as controversy in and of itself. I don't want to make this sound like I'm absolutely fixated on this though. If it ends up being about the Mets and Citi field then so be it. I just wanted to throw out the alternative. If you disagree, or even aren't sure, then by all means choose to disregard my suggestion. It was only ever intended to be a suggestion. Falastur2 Talk 08:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I also think there's better possibilities for a hook, to me the Mets thing is a peripheral issue. Particularly as the NYT reference used says "Mets officials declined to comment on the deal". Two alts suggested below. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, properly referenced with no evidence of plagiarism or overly close paraphrasing. Since the original nomination, the stadium section has been spun out to its own article, so the original hook and ALT1 are no longer applicable and I've struck them out. ALTs 2 and 3 are properly formatted, short enough, interesting enough, and inline cited to reliable sources. Not a self-nom so no QPQ requirement. Only problem was the stub rating on the talk page, which I have now fixed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)