Good article, and I agree with everything you said . . . except one thing. (There's always an exception, isn't there?) I've been saying for a few years now that "showing" and "telling" are not what most online articles claim they are, but few want to listen, probably because I contradict what people have learned. Showing is, in essence, painting a picture with words, whereas telling is dry explication. Either one can appear in narrative, dialogue, action, dramatization, or summary. It's not so much about the particular part of the story as it is about how that part is told. It's often said that the most evocative verse in the Bible is the shortest: "Jesus wept." Some would call that "telling," but no, Most readers (at least those who are connected to the story being told) will get an image of it in their heads and their hearts will respond to it. Therefore, it's showing.

Or, to take an example from real life, I could say that my late wife's hematologist was an expert in iron deficiency, or I could repeat what he actually said as his hands shook and his face took on a tinge of red: "I know more about this stuff than anyone at University of Maryland, Johns Hopkins, and Georgetown combined! I wrote the American guidelines on it!" If you can feel his anger, then I've shown it to you (as well as let you know that he's an expert). If not, maybe I need to work on it some more.

Again: Any part of a story can be either showing or telling. It's worth making as many parts as possible show. It won't hurt if a few "tell" bits slip through, but the more you show, the more your readers will connect with your story.