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: rejected by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Second generation immigrants in the United States[edit]

• ... that, as of 2009, one in ten Americans is a second-generation immigrant?

Created/expanded by Marymorales291 (talk). Nominated by Carabinieri (talk) at 20:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• New enough and long enough on date nominated. Image in article has fair use rationale.
• Article is not fully supported by inline citations. Tagged to show where. (As the lead does not appear to be written in summary style and is sporadically cited, there are tags there. This can be solved by citing the information found in the lead in the body, or fully citing the lead. See WP:LEAD for information on writing a lead.) There are seven tags, hence the no.
• Offline sources support text and are not plagiarised to support text.
• There are some problems with statements not really supported, that lead to possible WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH issues. Which studies say one thing? What other studies say the other thing? I've added tags in a few places to indicate where some of these problems can be found.
• Would like alternative hook because this article is specific to the United States, but Americans CAN refer to everyone in the Americas. Hook is not really supported by the text. 11% does not equal 10%, which the hook suggests. --LauraHale (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward: Fully cite article. Remove unclear wording that causes WP:NPOV issues. Propose alternative hook. --LauraHale (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)