Template:Did you know nominations/Demographic history profile of Detroit
- 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) 14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Demographic history profile of Detroit
[edit]- ... that Detroit's population increased by over 1,000 times between 1820 and 1930?
Created/expanded by Futurist110 (talk). Self nom at 03:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have now reviewed this article--Template:Did you know nominations/Fifth Siege of Gibraltar. Futurist110 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Article is long enough, 5x expanded, QPQ done and hook is verifiable. However, none of the article's references are complete (bare refs) which needs to be addressed. Also the summary section should be moved to the top so that it can act as the lead for the article. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have now fixed everything that you said to the best of my abilities. Futurist110 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article still has a few bare references. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can you be specific about which urls are bare? Refs 5 and 6 were kind of funky with the URLs because of who knows what. I re-typed in the titles on the two, and it seems to have resolved that. However, Ref 10 should actually be in an External Links category, because it doesn't point to specific information - just the main page of American Fact Finder. I believe everything else is OK with the references. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll fix it whenever I can, hopefully tomorrow. Futurist110 (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I now fixed it. Futurist110 (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll fix it whenever I can, hopefully tomorrow. Futurist110 (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can you be specific about which urls are bare? Refs 5 and 6 were kind of funky with the URLs because of who knows what. I re-typed in the titles on the two, and it seems to have resolved that. However, Ref 10 should actually be in an External Links category, because it doesn't point to specific information - just the main page of American Fact Finder. I believe everything else is OK with the references. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article still has a few bare references. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have now fixed everything that you said to the best of my abilities. Futurist110 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Half the refs. just contain titles. They need to be complete. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The bulk of this article is dependent on ref 1, and when I go to that web page I see nothing there that shows the information being footnoted. Indeed, "Detroit" appears nowhere on that page. If specific files or tables linked to from this page are being used, then they need individually to be referenced so the data can be checked out, but I'm concerned that this article may be mostly WP:SYNTH. Also, some of the statements make no sense: "decreased by two-and-a-half times" is simply impossible. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- All of the data in this article is from the U.S. Census Bureau, so it's not original research by synthesis. As for decreased by 2.5 times, I meant that the population was 2.5 times elss than it was before. English isn't my first language, so feel free to correct my grammar errors. Futurist110 (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the data is from the Census Bureau, it needs to be properly sourced so a reader of this article can find it. You presumably found it online; the references need to point to the exact web page or file you got a particular fact from. As for the "2.5 times", I think what you mean is that the population is 40% of what it had been (1 / 2.5), or decreased by 60%. Words like "times" are not appropriate when describing how something with a lower limit of zero has decreased, since you can never have a decrease more than 1 time (100%) of the full amount—it can only decrease by as much as it was. (The obvious exception: money, as you can end up in debt.) In this case, any number above 1 means the resulting population would have to be negative, which is an impossibility. If it makes sense to do a backward comparison, you could turn it around: the population used to be 2.5 times larger than what it later became—but that could work against the sense of what happened as the years passed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll fix it soon, hopefully tomorrow. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay. I will fix it later on today. Futurist110 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think I fixed everything that I needed to right now. Please let me know if I missed anything. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay. I will fix it later on today. Futurist110 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll fix it soon, hopefully tomorrow. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the data is from the Census Bureau, it needs to be properly sourced so a reader of this article can find it. You presumably found it online; the references need to point to the exact web page or file you got a particular fact from. As for the "2.5 times", I think what you mean is that the population is 40% of what it had been (1 / 2.5), or decreased by 60%. Words like "times" are not appropriate when describing how something with a lower limit of zero has decreased, since you can never have a decrease more than 1 time (100%) of the full amount—it can only decrease by as much as it was. (The obvious exception: money, as you can end up in debt.) In this case, any number above 1 means the resulting population would have to be negative, which is an impossibility. If it makes sense to do a backward comparison, you could turn it around: the population used to be 2.5 times larger than what it later became—but that could work against the sense of what happened as the years passed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- All of the data in this article is from the U.S. Census Bureau, so it's not original research by synthesis. As for decreased by 2.5 times, I meant that the population was 2.5 times elss than it was before. English isn't my first language, so feel free to correct my grammar errors. Futurist110 (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Refs #3, #4, #7 and #8 are still incomplete. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK give me a day or two and I'll fix them up. Sorry for the delay. Futurist110 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK I now fixed all of them. Let's seriously hope that I did it correctly this time. Futurist110 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
