Template:Did you know nominations/David Carson (director)
The following is an archived discussion of David Carson (director)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC).
David Carson (director)
edit- ... that David Carson had never heard of Star Trek when he moved to America, but five years later directed the film Star Trek: Generations?
- Reviewed: Sparkle in the Rain
- Comment: Increased from 410 characters to 3148
5x expanded by Miyagawa (talk). Self nominated at 17:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC).
- Reviewing. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Article - was 410 characters when expansion started on 17 February, now 3182 characters of readable prose excluding filmography list, so more than x7 expansion (as BLP wouldn't need anywhere near as much as this) so sufficiently long and expanded enough; neutral; at least one inline citation to every paragraph; no copy vios detected using earwig; and not a stub. I did a very minor copy edit and included Roddenberry was producer as I didn't know who he was (I thought he might have been one of the actors, sorry I really don't know much about Star Trek and readers might not know either).
- Hook - within length criteria at 135 characters; correctly formatted; and catchy.
- QPQ done; no images; I don't see any BLP concerns.
I may have a 'dim' head on today but I'm just not seeing a definite inline cite for the hook, could you clarify please as everything else checks out. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, you were quite right - I'd stuck the references at the end of following sentences but not directly at the hook facts. I've added those cites directly after the two points now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hook is now fully referenced with refs #2 and #3 (although in two separate paras but not a huge stretch to work it out, so I don't feel it's a problem).
- Nope, you were quite right - I'd stuck the references at the end of following sentences but not directly at the hook facts. I've added those cites directly after the two points now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)