Template:Did you know nominations/Urbanization in the United States

Urbanization in the United States

 * ... that the U.S. states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island became urban-majority in the 1840s, about 70 years before the country did as a whole?

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self nominated at 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC).


 * I have now reviewed this DYK? nomination--Template:Did you know nominations/Pusher Love Girl. Futurist110 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've edited the hook a little, hope you don't mind. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever changes you make to the hook are fine with me, just as long as you do not change the meaning of this hook. Futurist110 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg With few exceptions, all of refs are bare URLs, which are not allowed in DYK articles. These will need to be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now fixed all of these bare URLs. Futurist110 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm puzzled by the hook: I don't see how it is backed up by the data in the article's table. Rhode Island was well over 50% in 1840, but Massachusetts had barely passed 50% in 1850. Clearly they became urban majority states in different decades, which contradicts the hook statement. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Rhode Island's urban population changed from 43.8% on June 1, 1840 (the census day) to 55.6% on June 1, 1850 (the census day). Massachusetts's urban population changed from 37.9% to 50.7% during the same time period. Thus, Rhode Island might have become urban majority around 1845, while Massachusetts might have become urban majority around 1849. Thus, my hook and the info in it appears to still stand. Futurist110 (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case, you've misformatted your table. The 1830 number for Rhode Island in the table is 43.8%; 1840, 55.6%; and 1850, 63.3%. Massachusetts is 31.1%, 37.9%, and 50.7% for these three decades. As the table reads now—and I'm going strictly by the table, not the underlying sources—these events happened in different decades. There's also another issue that I hadn't realized: that the census in that part of the 1800s was based on June 1 rather than January 1 as now. If it was January 1, as I had assumed, then there's a clear dividing line between the decade of the 1840s and 1850s; June 1 means there's 5 months outside that window. Given that Massachusetts increased 12.8% between 1840 and 1850, the biggest shift of any decade, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the commonwealth was at 49.8% on January 1, 1850, and increased 0.9% in the first five months of the year. I don't say it's a sure thing, or even has above a 50% possibility of being true; what I am saying is that you don't have any concrete evidence the magic 50%+1 occurred before New Year's Day in 1850, so asserting that it did strikes me as WP:SYNTHESIS. Does FN1 explicitly say that MA and RI became urban majority in the 1840s? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The typo for Rhode Island contained a typo which I fixed. Also, technically speaking Rhode Island could have only become urban majority in early 1850 as well. It is extremely unlikely but theoretically possible since the urbanization between 1840 and 1850 might not have occurred at a constant pace every year or month. Anyway, here's a new hook:


 * ALT HOOK 1: ... that the U.S. states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island became urban-majority between 1840 and 1850, while the whole United States only became urban-majority between 1910 and 1920, more than 60 years later? Futurist110 (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, ALT HOOK 2: ... that the U.S. states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the first to become urban-majority? Futurist110 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, ALT HOOK 3: ... that Maine was the least urbanized U.S. state in 2010? Futurist110 (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the Rhode Island data. I've struck ALT1 because it's over the 200-character maximum. (I imagine it could be reworded to be shorter and snappier.) I think ALT2 is effective. I have a problem with ALT3 because Maine and Vermont are so close that they could have exchanged positions during 2010 (and more than once); it would be safer to include Vermont and call them the two least urbanized. (Also, the initial "the" in ALT3 should be removed.) The article needs to be careful about terms like "currently", and should instead refer to the specific census (2010) as things could have changed in three years. Also, the 1840s text in the body of the article needs to be adjusted, and any state mentioned in a hook here should have its mention in that body text be supported by an inline citation. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT HOOK 4: ... that Maine and New Hampshire were the least urbanized U.S. states in 2010? Futurist110 (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That said, if you are okay with ALT HOOK 2, I am also willing to go with that hook. Also, all of the info in that table is cited near the U.S. state name. I don't see the point in repeating the same citation over twenty times. Also, for the record, all of the data for this article comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, so everything in it is from one source. Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait--I changed my mind. I would prefer to go with ALT HOOK 5, which is now short enough to qualify for a DYK? hook (the part in parenthesis is optional and can be included or not included depending on what you want to do):


 * ALT HOOK 5: that the U.S. states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island became urban-majority between 1840 and 1850, while the whole United States only became urban-majority between 1910 and 1920 (60+ years later)? Futurist110 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Striking ALT4: it isn't correct anyway. (New Hampshire isn't one of the two least urban.) I also struck ALT3 for the previously stated reasons. For ALT5, it's not good style to use parentheses or a plus sign like that in a hook, so I'd advise dropping the parenthetical material. In fact, I've added a slightly recast version of it as ALT6 below, which also adds the "first urban-majority" fact for added hookiness, but it really shouldn't be used (or ALT2 either) without them being specifically credited with this fact in the article text. As for the inline cites, you should cite two facts in the body of the text for this hook: the Massachusetts and the Rhode Island urban majority (the whole U.S. is already cited). Just do it. Finally, and I know I've mentioned this on previous articles, "two times less" is an impossibility. It's like saying "200% less", also an impossibility.
 * ALT6: ... that while Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the first states to become urban-majority, between 1840 and 1850, the U.S. as a whole only became urban-majority between 1910 and 1920? —BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT6 is fine with me as the hook. Futurist110 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png New reviewer needed for ALT6 hook. (I can't approve it since I adapted it.) Issues mentioned in above paragraph should also be checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT HOOK 7: ... that Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the first U.S. states to become urban-majority, between 1840 and 1850, about 70 years before the U.S. as a whole? Futurist110 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Marking as confirmed. Stat verified, hook is supported, format issues addressed. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg A few things aren't quite right. First, "about 70 years". You can safely say "over 60 years", but as Massachusetts likely crossed the 50% line in 1849 or 1850 and the country as a whole in the mid-to-late 1910s, 70 years is not adequately supported. Second, I made it clear above that the hook source citations needed to be included in the text if Massachusetts and Rhode Island were to be used in the hook, and the cites still aren't. In the table isn't good enough for the hook fact, it must be by the end of the relevant sentence in the text. DYK rules are quite clear on this matter.


 * Note to Medeis: the approver is not supposed to edit the "passed" field at the top; that is reserved for the person who promoted the nomination to a prep area. That person is who is referred to by the "closing the discussion" comment up near the top of this template. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to insist that the Massachusetts and RI claims be mentioned in the text rather than in the chart, that's fine. I did notice technically that these did not have their own separate footnotes.  But I disagree there is any problem with the "about 70" verbiage.  The word about does not mean "fewer" or "more" -- it means about, which is perfectly accurate.  Once the RI and MA claims are put in the lead (something like "for instance, while MA[ref] and RI[ref] were majority urban in the 1850 census...) this should be marked ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added the text cites in myself. I think "about" is too vague: at what point does "about" become inaccurate? 69 years? 68? 67? 66? All those numbers are possible. Hooks are considered extraordinary claims by DYK: that's why the sourcing is required. And, in this case, there's too much we don't know about when the U.S. crossed the line from urban minority to urban majority to safely make an "about 70 years" claim. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me rewrite ALT HOOK 7 as ALT HOOK 8:


 * ALT HOOK 8: ... that Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the first U.S. states to become urban-majority, between 1840 and 1850, 60-80 years before the U.S. as a whole?


 * ALT HOOK 8 is indisputably accurate, since 1910-1850 = 60 while 1920-1840 = 80. If this new hook doesn't work, I would support using ALT HOOK 6. I feel that this discussion and debate has already become too long and unnecessary. Futurist110 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, here's ALT HOOK 9: ... that according to the 1850 US Census, Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the first U.S. states to become urban-majority, 70 years before the U.S. as a whole?" Futurist110 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Given AltHook9 attributes the claims directly to the referenced censuses themselves regardless of the calendar years I cannot see any possible objection. Per WP:ATTRIBUTE. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)