This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Frederick Solomon is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles
@Ssilvers Would you mind re-assessing and giving this a read through? I appreciate your editorial eye. Thanks for the help. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.[reply]
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.
N 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)[reply]