Template:Did you know nominations/History of the Chinese Americans in Seattle
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
History of the Chinese Americans in Seattle
edit* ... that although Chinese immigrants were initially welcomed to the Seattle area, they were later the targets of anti-Chinese rioting?
- Reviewed: Bourgoyen-Ossemeersen
5x expanded by MelanieN (talk). Self nominated at 22:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC).
Prose portion expanded more than fivefold in the last seven days (OK); the article is long enough (OK); the article is within policy, however, the lead can be greatly improved to cite the most important aspects of the article and the census data can be moved into the body (OK); the hook is of the appropriate format (OK); the hook is somewhat interesting, likely accurate, but does not appear to be directly cited inline (correct me if I'm wrong). The hook is neutral (?) In the article I find, "Initially welcomed because of the region's labor shortage, the Chinese later became resented as more white settlers arrived." Later it says, "The Seattle riot of 1886 led to the forced expulsion of some 350 Chinese men". Perhaps you could make this cited hook more explicit, perhaps in the lead? Otherwise, I see a lot of potential hooks already cited; the one about Wing Luke becoming the first Asian American to hold elected office in Washington state or Gary Locke becoming the first Chinese American to serve as governor of a state are already great hooks and File:Gary_Locke_official_portrait.jpg is free to use as a lead hook. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review and your suggestions. You are quite right about the lead and I will rework it. I would like to keep this hook if possible - it's surprising enough to draw people's attention. And it's a significant enough part of Seattle history to merit a large section in the "history of Seattle" article, as well as three separate Wikipedia articles about individual riots. I was under the impression that it was OK if the different clauses of the hook are cited in different places. But I will work on the article to make the sourcing stronger and more unified. This will take me a few days because I am traveling and my internet access is sporadic. I hope you don't mind waiting a bit while I work on it. I will ping you when I think I have it in shape. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds good. I would definitely appreciate some clarification from experienced DYK reviewers about using "different clauses" of a hook "cited in different places". Way back in the day, this was not acceptable, but seeing how this has come up twice now, I'm wondering if the rules have changed. In my mind, and for the most part, a hook should be easily cited in the source. If editors are composing hooks made from separately cited clauses, that rides the line of OR and defeats the purpose of the cited hook rule. Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review and your suggestions. You are quite right about the lead and I will rework it. I would like to keep this hook if possible - it's surprising enough to draw people's attention. And it's a significant enough part of Seattle history to merit a large section in the "history of Seattle" article, as well as three separate Wikipedia articles about individual riots. I was under the impression that it was OK if the different clauses of the hook are cited in different places. But I will work on the article to make the sourcing stronger and more unified. This will take me a few days because I am traveling and my internet access is sporadic. I hope you don't mind waiting a bit while I work on it. I will ping you when I think I have it in shape. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this is OK in a hook if the individual facts are solidly established on their own. They are naturally contrasting facts which together give the reader a sense of a small part of the arc of the subject. Let me suggest:
ALT1 ... that although Chinese immigrants in Seattle were initially welcomed as cheap labor, within a few decades they were the target of riots?
EEng (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am OK with ALT1 if that is preferred. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I have written a proper lead paragraph and moved some things around; do you find the article OK now or does it need more work? --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- The lead is improved, however you do repeat the term "1860s" twice in the first two sentences. To avoid repetition, you could say something like, "Greater Seattle has had a Chinese American community since the 1860s. Upon arrival, Chinese immigrants found plentiful work because the Seattle area was sparsely settled." In any case, my question about the requirement that the "hook fact [be] accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article" was not only unanswered, but was unfortunately compounded by EEng's ALT1, which I do not see cited in the article. I'm getting the sense that I'm in the Twilight Zone. When I first worked on DYK years ago, you could not have a hook that was 1) composed of separate facts juxtaposed at whim by the editor. That would undermine the entire point of having the hook cited inline. And 2) you still can't have an uncited hook. In that regard, I don't see anything about "cheap labor" in the article, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to turn down EEng's attempt to help. I'm also confused as to why the reference to Eskenazi 2001 appears in the lead, when I simply asked that the chosen hook (and I don't care which hook) be made more explicit with a cite somewhere. I thought this was a basic request. All you would have to do is cite the hook ("although Chinese immigrants were initially welcomed to the Seattle area, they were later the targets of anti-Chinese rioting") explicitly in the article, for example in the lead. Is this not done on DYK anymore? Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, sorry. I thought EEng had answered your request for "clarification from experienced DYK reviewers" (which EEng certainly is) about different clauses of a hook being cited in different places. I will work on putting the entire concept into a single sentence in the article, and on the other issues you raise. And I would be glad to participate in a discussion elsewhere about whether individual components of the hook can be cited separately. --MelanieN (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- The lead is improved, however you do repeat the term "1860s" twice in the first two sentences. To avoid repetition, you could say something like, "Greater Seattle has had a Chinese American community since the 1860s. Upon arrival, Chinese immigrants found plentiful work because the Seattle area was sparsely settled." In any case, my question about the requirement that the "hook fact [be] accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article" was not only unanswered, but was unfortunately compounded by EEng's ALT1, which I do not see cited in the article. I'm getting the sense that I'm in the Twilight Zone. When I first worked on DYK years ago, you could not have a hook that was 1) composed of separate facts juxtaposed at whim by the editor. That would undermine the entire point of having the hook cited inline. And 2) you still can't have an uncited hook. In that regard, I don't see anything about "cheap labor" in the article, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to turn down EEng's attempt to help. I'm also confused as to why the reference to Eskenazi 2001 appears in the lead, when I simply asked that the chosen hook (and I don't care which hook) be made more explicit with a cite somewhere. I thought this was a basic request. All you would have to do is cite the hook ("although Chinese immigrants were initially welcomed to the Seattle area, they were later the targets of anti-Chinese rioting") explicitly in the article, for example in the lead. Is this not done on DYK anymore? Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I have written a proper lead paragraph and moved some things around; do you find the article OK now or does it need more work? --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am OK with ALT1 if that is preferred. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
What a lot of fussing about nothing. I've modified the article, per the source cited, to reflect "cheap labor". There's nothing wrong with either hook. EEng (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Your change, while made in good faith, is not reflected by the intent of the original source, which says, "The first Chinese immigrants arrived on the Pacific coast after the 1848 California gold discoveries and initially were welcomed as a solution to labor shortages". So the orginal hook was accurate. As the source makes very clear with specific examples, the Chinese workers gained a reputation later for being willing to work for less money, and one gets the impression that was the due to various factors, such as an attempt to employ nonunion labor, rather than the desire of the Chinese to work for less. In any case, I do not find your paraphrase accurate, as this particular part of hook refers to the shortage of labor not to their reputation for working on the cheap. Therefore, I am inclined to go with the original hook. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that although Chinese immigrants in Seattle were initially welcomed as a solution to labor shortages, within a few decades they were the target of riots? EEng (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Check out the article now, and see if it now has what is needed. As for the hooks, both are fine, but I am inclined to favor the original one as being somewhat simpler. That hook already contains two points: they were initially welcomed, later they were targeted. Adding a third point, namely the reason why they were welcomed, might be a bit heavy for one sentence. However, all three points are referenced (all to the same source which makes it easy) and I am happy with whichever hook is chosen. Thanks for all your work on this, EEng. Actually I like your wording for the name of the article better than my original wording. How about a blend of the two:
- ALT3 ... that although Chinese immigrants in Seattle were initially welcomed to the area, within a few decades they were the target of anti-Chinese riots? --MelanieN (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
