Wikipedia:Peer review/Dylan and Cole Sprouse/archive3

Dylan and Cole Sprouse

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to (hopefully) get it up to FAC status. I asked for a peer review in December, and I've done everything on that list (I marked "dones" and left comments on what I did in response to the points on my to-do page instead of the peer review page). I'm listing it for another peer review now to get other perspectives from different people and to see what other issues holding back the article may need to be fixed on the road to being good enough for FAC. Any comments on how the article can be improved are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Purplewowies (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate comments

I have stepped in to make a few changes while looking over this article.

Lede

• Style - I think the second paragraph of the lede reads too much like a timeline. A lot of sentences start with "In" followed by a year. You should avoid throwing the years in so much as it is and certainly not at the beginning of a sentence if you can avoid it. When mentioning the films and series in which they have starred you really don't need to provide the year unless it is identical to another work in the same medium.
• Structure - The second paragraph should be split as it is a tad bulky when compared to the other paragraph in the lede and when compared to the rest of the article. You could bring together information about their wealth and education into a third paragraph.
• Wording - The "heartthrob" sentence in the second paragraph needs some work. Presenting the quotes in a way that implies they are factual statements when they are really opinions is not really appropriate. The "preteen and teen" wording should be substituted with a more all-encompassing term.
• Information - The material about photography and art probably doesn't need to be in the lede or should be shortened to be part of sentence. Since it seems there is very little information provided in the body of the article and it doesn't seem to be particularly significant it should probably not get mentioned in the lede at all.

Early Lives section

• Size - Should it be possible I would like to see this section expanded to at least be a somewhat larger paragraph.
• Structure - The way the second sentence is written is unnecessarily segmented. You can probably mention the small difference in the time of their births in a separate sentence and that would allow you to improve on the sentence.
• Information - Saying "their parents are divorced" and leaving it at that, without explaining its relevance, seems to be a bit of a problem. For instance, was it a significant event in their childhood?

Acting section

• Structure - I noticed the first sentence in the fourth paragraph is really long and full of commas. You should break that up into at least two sentences, maybe three. The last two paragraphs are really short and you should consider consolidating the material into one paragraph.
• Wording - The section on awards nominations for Big Daddy should be redone. Saying "while" then following with "although" in the same sentence is a bit messy and the material should avoid repeating "for" so closely in the same sentence. Again with the last two paragraphs I think repeating the wording "as of" at the beginning of each should be avoided. Repetitive wording makes the article less interesting to read.

Brand section

• Size - This is another section I would like to see expanded a bit, especially since it seems there is a rather lengthy New York Times article provided that is surely packed with significant information not currently included in the article.
• Wording - Saying "continued their clothing line" seems a bit unprofessional to me. That could probably be worded a little better.

Personal lives section

• Structure - The first sentence does not flow well with the quote provided. You should probably cut off the quote after "kind of scary" and paraphrase more, providing quotes for certain significant statements.
• Wording - Listing the various sports they enjoy would look better with a little more context. I don't particularly like just listing their interests unless it can be put in a more encyclopedic context. "Writing or drawing a comic strip" is a bit awkward as well. Do they enjoy both writing and drawing the comic strip? If so, you can probably find a single word to cover that. The material should probably be in its own sentence as well.
• Information - I see Adam Sandler getting mentioned a lot and think this probably needs a little more detail and context. What I would want is to see a little more information about any particular significance Sandler has had in shaping their careers or why they are fans of him.

General Issues

• Citations - Personally, I prefer having citations provided at the end of a sentence, rather than placed in the middle.
• Style - My objection about the timeline-style appearance in the lede applies to other parts of the article as well. Try to avoid starting a sentence with "In" followed by a date or year. Repeating the same words a lot at the beginning of a sentence or even just the same letter can also be a bit of a drain. A lot of sentences start with "the" or "they" and that should be cut down a bit. Don't try to avoid it all costs, but have those words pop up a little more sparingly at the beginning of sentences.

There are probably some other issues with this article I haven't covered, so if you want this to get up to featured article status I would suggest reading over it a bit more closely as someone else may take issue with other parts of the article I have not noticed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Responses to The Devil's Advocate comments

Thanks for changing the things that you changed. I actually wouldn't have noticed that kind of stuff otherwise (I'm bad at seeing those types of things).

Lede

• Wording - I've tried to rewrite the "heartthrob" sentence. Probably didn't pick the best wording, but I tried. I'm not sure what I could replace "preteen and teen" with (or maybe I'm not sure what exactly you're saying?).
• Information - On the art and photography material: The art and photography are recent things for them (in terms of making money off of it, etc.). It really isn't the thing that they're notable for, so I understand what you're saying. Dylan seems to really want to do this art thing more as a professional thing, so I don't doubt that there might be a bit more mention of it in the future (but that's the future, not now, so...). Cole's photography thing seems more like a side thing or something. I'll relocate that, shorten it, or remove it entirely.

Early Lives section

• Size - I will try to expand this if at all possible, but I'm not sure how much info I can find.
• Information - As far as I know, no, but I might need to look into it. It'll probably end up getting removed.

Brand section

• Size - I'll expand this with any relevant and significant information I can.

Personal lives section

Supreme facepalm of destiny This section actually probably needs a serious rewrite. I'm pretty sure the information in the second paragraph is a couple of years old at least. How on Earth did I not see that? I've read through this section several times! Gah!

General Issues

• Citations - Me too. I'll move any that are in the middle of sentences

Thanks for all the things you mentioned. A lot of it was things I have trouble spotting, especially in articles I'm fairly familiar with. I'll be sure to apply your suggestions. Thanks again! - Purplewowies (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)