Template:Did you know nominations/New York City: the 51st State

New York City: the 51st State

 * ... that New York City: the 51st State was the platform of Norman Mailer and Jimmy Breslin during the 1969 New York City Mayoral Primary, in which they proposed that New York City should secede from New York State and become the 51st State of the U.S.?

Created by Seduisant (talk). Self nom at 03:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The hook should read "...secede from New York State...". Also the hook doesn't contain a link to the article. Hack (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks Hack. --Seduisant (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hook: Interesting enough, rather long. Cited (agf). Suggested alt: ... that New York City: the 51st State was an election platform which proposed that New York City should secede from New York State and become the 51st State of the U.S.?
 * Article: New enough, long enough. Some bits are not cited, such as the majority of the first paragraph after the lead and most of the election results paragraphs. I'd prefer a citation to the pamphlet as well. References are a mess; please combine the commonly cited references into one (using the ref name style is fine) and fix the bare URLs. Paraphrasing seems close (note Sweet Sunday). Images seem to be in good shape.
 * Summary: Symbol possible vote.svg Not yet, requires additional referencing and feedback on the ALT. Also requires rewriting to eliminate close paraphrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg No reply in over a week. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that all or most of the content is supported by the sources that are cited in the article (for example, the book The Ungovernable City, cited as footnote 7, has many pages about this campaign), but the article creator has footnoted each source only once, possibly due to a misunderstanding. --Orlady (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Crisco and Orlady, thank you both for your interest in this subject. As regards Crisco's observation, "Some bits are not cited, such as the majority of the first paragraph after the lead and most of the election results paragraphs..." as I recollect, this content was stolen verbatim from New York City mayoral elections, and is not attributed since Wikipedia is not an acceptable source.  "I'd prefer a citation to the pamphlet as well." Done; handbill is now referenced/cited. "References are a mess; please combine the commonly cited references into one (using the ref name style is fine) and fix the bare URLs." References were brought into Wiki conformance by Materialscientist 9 days ago (or so I thought); Orlady, if you have the inclination, you could take a look and help me out with some advice on how these could be improved.  And I can find nothing "paraphrased" in the Sweet Sundays entry, as it is twice referenced, unless you mean another attribution to the Time article (in the first sentence).  I really won't sulk in the corner if this article isn't a fit for DYK... it's just that the campaign was an interesting footnote in NYC history that was quite the sensation at the time, and it's curious why there's been so little mention of it over the years.  I mean, a monorail around Manhattan?  Thanks again for your efforts. Kind regards, --Seduisant (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9 days ago is after my review, so I would not have noticed it. All this needs now appears to be at least one citation supporting the information per paragraph, excepting the lead. First paragraph after the lead has mostly uncited information, and should have another reference. First paragraph in the election results also requires a citation. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * [EC] - Seduisant, one of the "rules" of DYK is that the article content be adequately supported by footnoted citations, with a general guideline of one citation per paragraph. This article has several significant chunks that do not include any footnotes. It is particularly important that opinionated assertions like "Perhaps the most significant outcome of the Mailer-Breslin campaign was that they did not finish last" (the first sentence of a paragraph that is completely unfootnoted) be supported by indications of where the opinion/interpretation comes from. The fact that Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source does not exempt content from other Wikipedia articles from the requirement to cite sources. If the other article cites sources, look at those sources and use them in your article. If the other article is unsourced and you can't verify the content yourself, don't use it. --Orlady (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)