Template:Did you know nominations/List of accolades received by Miami Vice
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
List of accolades received by Miami Vice
[edit]- ... that although Philip Michael Thomas coined the term "EGOT" (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony), only Edward James Olmos and Jan Hammer would win any of those awards working on Miami Vice?
- Reviewed: Kantian ethics
- Comment: ALT1: ... that Edward James Olmos' Golden Globe and Emmy wins are among the accolades received by Miami Vice?
Created/expanded by Grapple X (talk). Self nom at 06:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Nominator has reviewed. Article expansion is new enough and long enough: Prose size (text only): 3965 characters (638 words) "readable prose size", Article created by Grapple X on September 10, 2011, Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 19 edits ago on March 15, 2012. Article reads as neutral enough to me. Article is supported by inline citations. Images on article have copyright tags. Plagiarism check: here, here, here, here give no cause for concern. Both hooks appear to be properly formatted. No BLP violations that I see.
- First hook is slightly more interesting to me. The text it supported by article. Citations support the relevant test.
Erk. The lead has a citation, which supports the hook. The rest of the lead is not cited. This is confusing because if this is the only fact not mentioned in the rest of the body but cited there, lead is not summary style. If the rest of the facts are note cited elsewhere, then the article is not fully supported. --LauraHale (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I am inclined to ignore the issues with the lead and tick this as good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- The citation in the lead is because the fact is not mentioned elsewhere (not really anywhere else relevant to put it), but everything else is a summary of the article. It's a similar approach to what I took with List of accolades received by David Lynch, as list-class articles tend to bend the conventions of WP:LEAD by often not having a "body" as such. I could probably shoe-horn the EGOT thing into the Emmy and Grammy headings if you think it should be repeated later in the list, though. GRAPPLE X 07:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to like summary style leads where it summarises the article because it makes clear the citation issues in the lead. But I assumed it was summary style except for the fact cited in the lead. As a personal preference, I would shoe horn it some where in the article, but that's probably beyond the scope of the DYK review. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- The citation in the lead is because the fact is not mentioned elsewhere (not really anywhere else relevant to put it), but everything else is a summary of the article. It's a similar approach to what I took with List of accolades received by David Lynch, as list-class articles tend to bend the conventions of WP:LEAD by often not having a "body" as such. I could probably shoe-horn the EGOT thing into the Emmy and Grammy headings if you think it should be repeated later in the list, though. GRAPPLE X 07:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
With clarification, good to go. Don't let the dialog fool you. ;) --LauraHale (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)