Talk:Falling for Figaro

A fact from Falling for Figaro appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 November 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that one critic opined that "it's hard to fall for Falling for Figaro"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Falling for Figaro.

Wikipedia

Film: Australian / British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Did you know nomination

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) 16:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that Falling for Figaro was entirely filmed in Scottish Highlands?~~ Source: Ferguson, Brian (5 January 2020). "Filming underway in Scottish Highlands for new romantic comedy starring Joanna Lumley". The Scotsman. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
- ALT1: ... that Falling for Figaro took only two winter months to make (December and January)? Source: Groves, Don (7 September 2020). "Rom-com 'Falling for Figaro' to screen at TIFF Industry Selects". IF Magazine.
- ALT2: ... that Falling for Figaro encompasses many renowned operas, including The Barber of Seville, The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, Romeo and Juliet, La traviata? Source: Groves, Don (7 September 2020). "Rom-com 'Falling for Figaro' to screen at TIFF Industry Selects". IF Magazine.
- ALT3: ... that one critic opined that "it's hard to fall for Falling for Figaro"?

Created by Filmomusico (talk). Self-nominated at 00:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@SL93: Hello. Any interest?--Filmomusico (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure if any of the hooks meet the interestingness criterion. ALT2 feels vaguely promotional to me, ALT1 isn't special or unusual, and ALT0 seems rather bland. Can other hook proposals be suggested here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I've suggested ALT3, although admittedly, this article doesn't offer an abundance of material. (also, we've had exceptions to MOS:CONTRACTIONS before, so that's not an obstacle if we don't say it is) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the best hook, but given that there really aren't any other options I think it will suffice. The article otherwise meets DYK requirements, I didn't find any close paraphrasing, and since the nominator has only one successful DYK nomination so far they are exempt for QPQ. Per my earlier comments I have struck all hooks except for ALT3; however, I'm still on the fence as to its appropriateness, so I'd like to hear a second opinion on it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 is fine IMO (now that I've tweaked it for accuracy), in fact it's quite amusing and would I think make a good quirky. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 looks good, I've checked the source and it's verifiable, so that's good to go in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]