Template:Did you know nominations/Wayzata Bay Center

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) 06:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wayzata Bay Center edit

(

)

~~... that in 2011, Wayzata Bay Center was shut and torn down to make way for a mixed-use retail and residential community center?~~

Comment: I have never nominated an article for DYK mention before, so I apologize if I make an error or mistake during this, thank you. Carbrera (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by Carbrera (talk). Self-nominated at 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC). Transcluded 21:27, 2 February 2017.

Comment: this nomination was not originally transcluded at time of nomination, but is being reactivated now. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This nomination was made by a first-time nominator 3 weeks after receiving a Good Article icon. However, since we are finally transcluding it 10 months later, I will IAR on this first nomination and review it for DYK. It is long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, and no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. The only issue is the hook. It seems like a pretty ordinary fact. The part about the vacancy rate going up so dramatically is more interesting – but please note that the source cited at the end of this sentence says nothing about store closures being the cause of the increased vacancy rate, so this clause needs to be sourced. The trolley is also cute. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

ALT1: ~~... that the now defunct Wayzata Bay Center was built on top of wetlands which were filled to create land suitable for development?~~Source: Wayzata Historical Society

@Yoninah: How about this one? I wouldn't know how to formulate the trolley fact since it uses a book source instead of a website/online publication. Carbrera (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2017‎ (UTC)

I don't understand; you just make a hook out of what you wrote in the article. The ALT1 is okay; you don't have to say it's defunct (that will turn off readers). I suggest shortening it to:
ALT1a: ... that the Wayzata Bay Center shopping mall was built over wetlands?
Here's another suggestion:
ALT2: ... that the Wayzata Bay Center shopping mall, with 1,200 parking spaces, used to offer a shuttle service? ~~(Note: a trolley car runs on rails; is that what the source says?)~~ Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I was told in a previous DYK nom that the source used to verify the DYK has to be available on the internet. And since the book is not (in full) available online, I was hesitant to use the trolley factoid. But in the case I'm wrong, I strongly prefer ALT2. Carbrera (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Carbrera: that information is incorrect. You'll notice that we have 2 approval icons, one green (for online sources that the reviewer can verify personally) and one gray (for AGF, or "assume good faith") for offline sources. We AGF hooks all the time. Could you please verify the nature of the trolley, as I'd like to link it in the article to tram? Then another reviewer will have to approve the alt, since I wrote it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, I no longer have the book in my possession, but it definitely wasn't on a rail. I think the author was using "trolley" for "shuttle". Regards, Carbrera (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

I agree. I searched on "trolley" in the Google book source and nothing came up. I edited the article and hook. Calling on another editor to complete the review of ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Just wondering what the importance of that note is in ALT 2. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

@Carbrera: I asked you a question there, and you answered it below. Then I struck it out, but I left it there so the prep promoter can read through the review and see for himself/herself that any problems that were raised were resolved. (Don't worry, it's not part of the hook; any prep builder knows that the hook ends with the question mark.) The whole nomination, including strikethroughs, stands as a complete record of the review for interested prep promoters, queue promoters, and main page administrators. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer still needed for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

- Length, Date (IAR), QPQ exempt, and Earwigs all check. ALT 1a cite verified, ALT 2 cite is offline book accepted AGF. ALT 1a and ALT 2 approved. Mifter (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)