- 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 SL93 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Madera Sugar Pine Company
- ... that a Chinatown in the logging community of Sugar Pine was intentionally burned down by the Madera Sugar Pine Company in 1922? Source: "Sugar Pine's Chinatown had its revenge". The Madera Tribune. August 8, 2017. Retrieved August 3, 2022.
- ALT1: ... that a Chinatown in the logging community of Sugar Pine was intentionally burned down by the Madera Sugar Pine Company in the aftermath of the Chinese Exclusion Act? Source: "Sugar Pine's Chinatown had its revenge". The Madera Tribune. August 8, 2017. Retrieved August 3, 2022.
- Reviewed:
- Comment: In researching this article I was surprised to learn that after Chinese immigrants played such a central role in establishing the state's logging industry following the California Gold Rush, they were virtually eliminated from the area by 1922 when the Madera Sugar Pine Company intentionally burned down the Chinatown district in Sugar Pine (Mexican workers were substituted in the following years.) Unlike the Chinese experience in the gold rush, this cruel and unfair circumstance in the lumber industry appears to be much less well known.
Created by Guywelch2000 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC).
- Not a review. I was going to review it, but my review turned into a slight copyedit, and I found enough uncited sections to tag it with {{refimprove}}. Those should be addressed before this nomination is seriously considered. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to go through the page. This is the first time I have contributed so much to a page from scratch and am still getting a feel for where and how frequently to cite. Fortunately, I still have my reference books and notes from my trip to the Sierra this summer, as well as access to the excellent newspaper archive from the University of California. Has the page improved to meet citation standards? Guywelch2000 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The article's references have been substantially improved so I will review this. - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
Nominator is QPQ-exempt and everything checks out in the article as far as I can tell after the improvements. @Daniel Case: let me know if you still have issue with the state of the article's sourcing but everything seems adequately sourced. I do think that ALT0 is the better hook, as ALT1 mentions the Chinese Exclusion Act, something the source attached to ALT1 doesn't appear to mention, and which passed 40 years before the burning down of the Chinatown, so saying that it happened in the aftermath of the Act seems misleading. I see that a book cited does appear to mention it, but again the connection there doesn't seem particularly strong, not enough to mention it in the hook. - Aoidh (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: Sourcing's good now. Daniel Case (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Nominator is QPQ-exempt and everything checks out in the article as far as I can tell after the improvements. @Daniel Case: let me know if you still have issue with the state of the article's sourcing but everything seems adequately sourced. I do think that ALT0 is the better hook, as ALT1 mentions the Chinese Exclusion Act, something the source attached to ALT1 doesn't appear to mention, and which passed 40 years before the burning down of the Chinatown, so saying that it happened in the aftermath of the Act seems misleading. I see that a book cited does appear to mention it, but again the connection there doesn't seem particularly strong, not enough to mention it in the hook. - Aoidh (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)