Talk:The Voyage That Lasted 600 Years
Latest comment: 3 years ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from The Voyage That Lasted 600 Years appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination edit
- The following 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 SL93 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
( )
- ... that golden age short story "The Voyage That Lasted 600 Years" is the first use of a generational starship in fiction? Source: Caroti, p.14
- Reviewed: Pokémon Legends: Arceus
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 12:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC).
New enough at the time of nomination, and long enough, with 1647 characters of readable prose according to DYKCheck. The Plot subsection is uncited, but per MOS:PLOT I don't think this is a core policy violation worth holding up a DYK over -- though I would encourage citing the work itself in the plot section, at least. Hook short enough, meets the formatting guidelines, and I'm certainly interested. QPQ was done. There is a discrepancy between the citation for the source on the page and in the DYK nomination: here it's listed as page 14, but on the page the same fact is cited as being supported by page 13. I think the directly supporting claim is the sentence "The first true generation starship story is usually considered (Nicholls 480) to be Don Wilcox's 'The Voyage That Lasted 600 Years' (1940)", which is on page 13 of the cited paper, so it looks like the article is correct and no update is needed. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
