Template:Did you know nominations/Lessons (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Lessons (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

 * ... 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)




 * Pictogram voting keep.svg
 * Article:New - Expanded from 1902 characters to 7494 characters (3.94 times expansion) Pictogram voting keep.svg 678 characters to 6,259 characters (see below); 9.23 times growth in article prose
 * Article:Length - Symbol confirmed.svg Pass
 * Article:Within Policy - Symbol confirmed.svg passed neutrality, Pictogram voting keep.svg No citations to reliable sources in lead section or plot section citation concerns abated, Symbol confirmed.svg passed copyright violations per earwig@toolserver:copyvio
 * Hook:Format Symbol confirmed.svg - Hook 109 characters in length
 * Hook:Content - Symbol confirmed.svg Is interesting if you value the opinion of Michael Piller, Pictogram voting keep.svg is verified by Source 2 (book written by Larry Nemecek), Symbol confirmed.svg and is neutral and not negative of a living person
 * Other - Symbol confirmed.svg reviewed other DYK Nominee, and Symbol neutral vote.svg 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)