I will be analyzing a lead in a story on CNN about the burial of a soldier who died in a WWI battle and was found in a mass grave in 2008.
The lead in this story contains the basic news elements of the story. It tells us the who, what, when, and where.
The "where" is more detailed than it should to be. The "where" is Fromelles, France. I think in this case the writer just had to say France because the specific city is not important to understand the rest of the article. The city should be named later in the article, but not in the lead.
The "who" is general. The "who" is just a recovered body from a WWI battle being buried. The writer could not be more specific because the name of the soldier is unknown. Even if the name was known, the writer would not need to be more specific because the soldier was not a celebrity.
The "when" is general, as it should be. The writer just says the event happened on Saturday.
The "what" is also general. The "what" is just the soldier being buried. There is no need to go into any more detail in the lead.
After the writer mentions the who, what, when, and where, he goes into more detail in the lead about the history of the mass grave. Normally going into more detail would not be necessary in the lead. However, in this case, the detail in the lead, which describes the battle that resulted in the mass grave, was very interesting and helped hook the reader and get the reader to read the rest of the article.