Talk:The Sleeping Beauty and the Beast
Appearance
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from The Sleeping Beauty and the Beast appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- ... that composer Frederick Solomon adapted several British pantomimes into Broadway musicals, including The Sleeping Beauty and the Beast (sheet music pictured)? Source: Hischak, Thomas S. (2015). "Solomon, Fred (Frederick Charles Solomon, 1853–1924)". In Zipes, Jack (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Fairy Tales, Second Edition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199689828.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tidy Trax
- Comment: Because this is a double nom, I also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Hooke
Created by 4meter4 (talk) and Ssilvers (talk). Nominated by 4meter4 (talk) at 17:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Sleeping Beauty and the Beast; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Reviewing
- The Sleeping Beauty and the Beast was created 2/27 and is 3280 characters, while Frederick Solomon was created 2/24 and is 6211 characters. Both are new enough and long enough.
- This is a two-article hook and only one single-article QPQ has been completed.
- No images presented for consideration.
- Most sources are offline so I assume WP:AGF. The few sources that are accessible give not indication of copyright violation.
- All paragraphs have citations and each fact generally seems to be cited with WP:ICs.
- The pages are both written in a tone that is neutral and encyclopedic.
- The hook fact seems to be cited by offline sources. The sources seem legitimate WP:RSs and the text regarding the facts in both articles is properly supported by WP:ICs.
- @TonyTheTiger I reviewed two articles. I think you missed the second QPQ review named above in the comments section. The template wouldn't allow for a second article review placement so I put the second QPQ in the comment section when I made the nomination.4meter4 (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- . Yes I just looked in the reviewed line and saw one. All good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger I just added an image. Would you mind taking a look?4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Image is used in one of the articles and it seems to be copyfree. Still all good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)