Template:Did you know nominations/Lessons (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
- 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 George Ho (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Lessons (Star Trek: The Next Generation)[edit]
- ... that Michael Piller likened the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Lessons" to the film Brief Encounter?
- Reviewed: Caracalla (horse)
5x expanded by Miyagawa (talk). Self nom at 13:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Article:New -
Expanded from 1902 characters to 7494 characters (3.94 times expansion)
678 characters to 6,259 characters (see below); 9.23 times growth in article prose - Article:Length -
Pass - Article:Within Policy - passed neutrality,
No citations to reliable sources in lead section or plot sectioncitation concerns abated, passed copyright violations per earwig@toolserver:copyvio - Hook:Format - Hook 109 characters in length
- Hook:Content - Is interesting if you value the opinion of Michael Piller, is verified by Source 2 (book written by Larry Nemecek), and is neutral and not negative of a living person
- Other - reviewed other DYK Nominee, and
no image used
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was expanded from 812 characters to 7494, as items in bullet point lists doesn't count against the totals. Miyagawa (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- If that is the case, this version has only 678 characters of prose (per the count using Microsoft Word) and the latest version reviewed has 6,259 characters (not including spaces using MW), which would be 9.23 times growth. However if the notes section is included in the old version there is 1,576 characters of prose (not including spaces using MW), with the latest being only 3.97 times growth. I will error on the side of good faith and will list the first figure above; however, that does not remedy the other issues which I have put forward (sections missing citations).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Leads should never normally contain citations, they're meant to be a summary of the cited material already included elsewhere in the article. Per WP:FILMPLOT, basic plot summaries also do not need citations. Miyagawa (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:FILMPLOT does apply regarding references, however, no where in MOS:LEAD did I read that the lead does not require references. If the content is referenced in the body of the article, it should be very easy to reference the lead using existing references.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:CITELEAD regarding the usage of citations in the lead. It states "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Miyagawa (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Another aspect of WP:CITELEAD states:
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.
- I will strike the concern, however, if advancing to GAN it will not be something that will be overlooked.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Another aspect of WP:CITELEAD states:
- See WP:CITELEAD regarding the usage of citations in the lead. It states "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Miyagawa (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:FILMPLOT does apply regarding references, however, no where in MOS:LEAD did I read that the lead does not require references. If the content is referenced in the body of the article, it should be very easy to reference the lead using existing references.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Leads should never normally contain citations, they're meant to be a summary of the cited material already included elsewhere in the article. Per WP:FILMPLOT, basic plot summaries also do not need citations. Miyagawa (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- If that is the case, this version has only 678 characters of prose (per the count using Microsoft Word) and the latest version reviewed has 6,259 characters (not including spaces using MW), which would be 9.23 times growth. However if the notes section is included in the old version there is 1,576 characters of prose (not including spaces using MW), with the latest being only 3.97 times growth. I will error on the side of good faith and will list the first figure above; however, that does not remedy the other issues which I have put forward (sections missing citations).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)