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 Crisco 1492talk 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Overall: The first hook seems most attractive and has been checked out thoroughly. It's the one that works best with the picture as I like the way that it identifies all the people. I haven't been able to run Earwig yet and want to do so as there's a lot of quotations and plot to consider. There are also some copy-editing niggles such as some Americanisms and the crooked lead image but I may take care of those myself pending the final review. (<later>I've made a copy-editing pass and run Earwig and it's reasonably good to go now. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Andrew. I agree that the first hook is far and away the best one, with or without the image (though obviously much better with it). I would appreciate any and all copy-editing edits from you, especially for the Americanisms; I tried my best to conform to British English standards, but my eye for it is by no means perfect. Hopefully Earwig will be up and running shortly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome. It was the centre/center spelling that caught my eye. I'm making a copy-editing pass through the article and addressing some pleonasm and other issues too. Feel free to push back if you disagree. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
All excellent suggestions/fixes; I have a tendency for unnecessary periphrasis. I pushed back on minor quibbles – mostly with the plot and character descriptions, having spent quite some time reading and re-reading the play – but I believe all the changes should still be well in line with British standards. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The Earwig score was 3% which is negligible. The extensive quotes and lengthy synopsis are debatable but I don't consider these to be show-stoppers and so we can move forward. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)