Template:Did you know nominations/1966 New York City smog


 * 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) 05:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

1966 New York City smog

 * ... that the 1966 New York City smog increased public awareness of the issue of air pollution in the United States, leading to the signing of the 1967 Air Quality Act (pictured)?


 * ALT1 ... that the 1966 New York City smog increased public awareness of air pollution, leading to the 1967 Air Quality Act (signing pictured)?
 * ALT2 ... that the three-day 1966 New York City smog, which started 50 years ago on November 23, increased public awareness of air pollution and led to the 1967 Air Quality Act (signing pictured)?
 * Could also revise "on November 23" to "today" or "on this day," I wasn't sure which of these would be considered most acceptable given different time zones or general practice of incorporating anniversary facts into a DYK hook. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to make a date request for November 23, which will be the 50th anniversary of the first day of the smog event.

Created by Brandt Luke Zorn (talk). Self-nominated at 09:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC).


 * Comment only Shorter "hookier" ALT1 added. Edwardx (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The article is new enough and is well over the minimum in size. The article is neutral and cites sources. A detected issue with overlap / paraphrasing from presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28228 is related to a large quotation pulled from that source; there is no copyvio issue with this source or any other detected. The hooks are interesting and properly sourced; I'd go for ALT1. QPQ is not required for this editor. Can we hold for November 23, the 50th anniversary of the onset of the event?, if we're going to hold until November 23, might you want to offer another alternative hook that makes the explicit connection to the anniversary? Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely prefer ALT1 to my first draft, thank you to for the revision. And thank you  for the review. I've pitched an ALT2 that incorporates the fact of the anniversary in a way that I hope is not awkward. I considered using an altogether new fact for the hook, but anything else (say, making the hooks just the fact of the smog's anniversary, or some meteorological fact about conditions on November 23) would, I think, diminish the apparent historical importance of the smog to a DYK reader. Not to mention it would lose the opportunity to use the image of Johnson signing the AQA, which is probably the most-valuable free image in that article. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both for the article and the quick response. Its a shame that the image of the smog in the article isn't public domain, as it would be the far better image. The photo of the signing may be too small to appreciate in the 100px size required on the main page. Well done article. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also true — I really am not too pleased with the image, which at small scale is sort of a dark compositional smudge. It does look a bit better on click-through — at least you can recognize Johnson, right? — and the ubiquity of the trope of a presidential bill-signing photo might make the thumbnail recognizable, if not beautiful, at a glance. I hope that merits consideration for the photo's inclusion on the main page, but I'm definitely not married to the idea that the image should be included.
 * I scoured the web for a free image of the smog but sadly none seem to exist. That copyrighted photo was actually uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for a long while because a Flickr user is falsely claiming it as their own public-domain image; I looked into it and ultimately nominated the Commons upload for deletion with a heavy heart, because the idea of that image being a free one was tragically too good to be true. There is also the free weather map image but that one's not exactly thrilling either, and would require a meteorological hook, something I'm not personally thrilled by either.
 * Finally, thank you for your kind words on the article! I'm hoping to move it through the GAN, peer review and FAC processes as quickly as I can. It's currently nominated for GA. I don't know if reviewing GANs is in your general field of work but I would be extremely appreciative if you'd take a look there, since you've already had a look through it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment changed the image from File:Clean Air Act Signing.jpg to File:Clean Air Act Signing edited cropped.jpg. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the word (pictured) needs to be added to all three hooks. Also, would the image present at the top of the background section be better? P p p er y 20:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the comment, I've added "(pictured)" to the three hooks above. Here's what another caption that uses the other image you discussed might look like, retaining the same wording but indicating that the photo is not from the same smog event (it is frustrating and sad that the 1966 smog doesn't seem to have any available free images.) —BLZ · talk 00:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT3 ... that the three-day 1966 New York City smog, which started 50 years ago on November 23, increased public awareness of air pollution and led to the 1967 Air Quality Act (1953 smog pictured)?
 * I've added the word 'signing' to ALT2, and would like to suggest an alternate hook for the caption:
 * ALT4 ... that the three-day 1966 New York City smog, which started 50 years ago on November 23, increased public awareness of air pollution (pictured) and led to the 1967 Air Quality Act?
 * P p p er y 01:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with ALT4. I think you're right that the smog photo is better. Although the photo's from a different smog event (unfortunately), I don't see any chance of it being misleading as you've captioned it. —BLZ · talk 19:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually caption it; you did. The only difference between ALT3 and ALT4 is the moving of the work (pictured) to be after "air pollution" rather than at the end. P p p er y 19:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)