- 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 Allen3 talk 10:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Broad Avenue
edit...that Broad Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee went from an undeveloped rundown road to a bustling arts district in less than two years?
- alt 1
...that Broad Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee went from an unused rundown road to a bustling arts district in less than a decade?- alt 2
... that Broad Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee went from a typical city street to a vibrant arts district in less than a decade?- alt 3 ... that Broad Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee went from vacant storefronts to a vibrant arts district in less than a decade?
- alt 2
Created/expanded by Theopolisme (talk). Self nom at 00:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The article is long enough (barely) and new enough (created 10/6). However, the hook fact is not contained in the article and appears to be wrong. The article says the district had many "vacant storefronts" two years ago; that is not the same as being "undeveloped." Also, the gist of the hook seems to be contradicted by this source, indicating that Broad Street was already "bustling" and an "arts district" in 2010. See also this article from 2009 reporting that Broad Street was already an arts district and was then holding its "4th Annual Broad Avenue Art Walk" -- indicating that Broad Street had been on arts district at least dating back to 2006. There's also this article from July 2009 proclaiming Broad Street to be a "Biz Hot Spot" and arts district. Those accounts are fundamentally inconsistent with the article's assertion that Broad Street was "an undeveloped rundown road" in 2010 which was transformed over the next two years into a bustling arts district. Not sure these issues can be fixed, but unless and until they are, this nomination cannot be approved. Cbl62 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Cb -- thanks for the review. I don't know what I was thinking with the hook (maybe I misread something, or maybe I was just tired). In any case, I've modified the above "...less than a decade" and from undeveloped (again, a sigh) to "...unused rundown road." Thanks! Theopolisme 12:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding alt 1. Article is long enough and new enough. The hook facts is still not expressly stated in the article and is not supported by in-line citations. Article and sources don't call it "unused" or "rundown." Nor does the article refer to the area as a "bustling arts district." Also, I still don't think "unused" is an accurate word to use in describing a street that is fully developed but with a high vacancy rate. And there's no sourcing describing it as "unused." Cbl62 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- See new hook: "typical city street" (which I think we can agree it was) and "vibrant arts district" - which the sources state. Theopolisme 00:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- * Regarding alt 2. The article does not refer to it as a "typical city street." Nor do the cites sources refer to it that way. It's not my intention to be overly technical, but I think you should take a look at the applicable Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules, especially this: "The 'Did you know?' fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. Many submissions fail to meet one or both of these criteria." Cbl62 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Modified: "vacant storefronts" is included in the sources, is it not? Theopolisme 00:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding alt 3. We're not communicating effectively. I cited the rule for you (above) to emphasize that the hook fact "must be mentioned in the article" and supported by in-line citations to reliable sources. The further modified hook fact that you have proposed is still not "mentioned in the article" with in-line citations. Cbl62 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for not comprehending what you're saying, and thanks for bearing with me."Must be mentioned in the article" -- does this mean that the hook itself my be directly "hooked" from the article? (As in, copy-and-paste, basically.) So: "...arranged in which the vacant storefronts along Broad..." -- this is supported by the WMCtv citation, which follows it. "Vibrant arts district" -- the sources themselves use this exact wording. Are you then referring to, perhaps, the "less than a decade"? Does this need to be stated in the article with a reference to one of the Commercial Appeal articles? If so, that can be done -- and again, my apologies for my ignorance. Theopolisme 20:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. The hook fact has to be expressly stated in the article with direct in-line citations. The current alt 3 hook fact is not currently in the article with such in-line citations. Nowhere in the article does it state that the street when fro vacant storefronts to a vibrant arts district in less than a decade. Cbl62 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
