Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I do not think it is anywhere near ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many biography articles which are FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies - I note that there are two separate FA biographies on siblings: Jake Gyllenhaal and Maggie Gyllenhaal which may be useful models. It may that at some point in time this article may have to be split into two
Biggest problem I see with the article right now is a lack of references (I am a bit surprised this was not an issue at GAC, but it would be a quick fail at FAC in its current state). For example these need references:
Done
As with many twins, the two have often played the same role, allowing more time for the character to be filmed. At eight months old, the two appeared on the ABC-TV series Grace Under Fire from 1993 to 1998, playing single character, Patrick Kelly.
Done
During the early 2000s, the twins appeared in episodes of The Nightmare Room and That '70s Show, as well as in MADtv: Season Four (1998-1999) (episode #425) and the feature films The Master of Disguise and a voice-over role in Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights. In 2001, Cole began appearing in episodes of the television show Friends, as Ross Geller's son Ben; this role was not shared with Dylan.
Done
...and the twins have become very well known among pre-teen and teen audiences. As part of their involvement with Disney, the brothers also became part of the 11-member group, the Disney Channel Circle of Stars, and sang the song "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" along with the members of the circle, for a video that was released as bonus material in the special edition version of the Disney film Cinderella. They also participated in the Disney Channel Games from 2006 to 2008.
Done
Actually done now - removed unsourced statement and all DC games now sourced. - 20:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Article has no refs for their roles in the Filmography or the Discography section
Done
Discography Done. Two to go on Filmography. - 06:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Filmography Done. - 22:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
References need to be consistent - for example Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Doing... There are only a couple that are MLA instead of {{cite xxx}}, and they're the ones that need more information or might be unreliable (I might have gotten the unreliable ones out already though...).
Or this ref "Popstar! Magazine. May 2007. Print." needs page, article title, author (if given).
Make sure all refs meet WP:RS - IMDb is often a problem, for example. I would also get as many third-party independent sources as possible. Or what makes Buddy TV a reliable source?
Done
Looking on Amazon there are a few books on them which seem like they might be useful to get and cite here
I saw two that seemed like good sources, but I can't buy them right now. I'd have to wait a couple months.
I realize that they are young, but the article is pretty short and seems like it could be expanded. One of the FAC requirements is that the article be comprehensive (see WP:WIAFA). I think the brevity of the article is especially worrisome since this is about two actors (albeit twins who used to share a role)
Looking at model FAs which are biographies of actors, there are critical comments on the acting for most roles interspersed in the article. This is just a list of roles, with no real critical responses to their work that I saw. There have to be some reviews out there.
Done
There are lots of little MOS things which would be a problem at FAC. For example, there is some WP:OVERLINKing - does the average reader really need a link on twins?
Alternate names in the lead should bold, not italicized
Done
Although this is the English Wikipedia, I am not sure that all readers will know that "Bros" is an abbreviation for "Brothers" - it would help to spell this out (know collectively as the Sprouse brothers, usually abbreviated as Sprouse Bros).
Done
Watch out for consistency on little things - so is it "Bros" (no period) or "Bros." (period)? Both are used
Didn't touch because the official usage is without a period, but the ones that use periods (their book series and their one magazine issue) are officially spelled with the period.
Also is the phrase Sprouse Bros in italics or in quotes or in regular font (all three are used)
I've removed quotes since I can't find any sources using them. The bold are the ones that they are referred to as. Any in italics are names of books/magazines.
Or is it pre-teen or preteen? Also note that links should be on the first use (preteen is linked on second use now)
Done
Use "double quotes" for everything but a quotation inside another quotation (use 'single quotes' only for that)
Done
Avoid vague time terms like "currently" in The brothers are currently represented by William Morris Endeavor.[23] Something like "as of 2011" works better
Done
Similarly "between" is not used correctly in Between the years of 2002 and 2003, they both appeared in I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus and Just for Kicks, ... - there is no other year between 2002 and 2003
Done
Provide context to the reader - explain things that may be obvious to you, but are not well known - see WP:PCR Three examples - child labor laws in the US lead to the hiring of twins to play the role of an infant or young child, and what is Dannon Danimals (childrens yogurt), or who are the Olsens (I know, but it is not explained or linked)
Done for the examples listed.
Prose is OK - will need a copyedit before FAC, but fix everything else first. One example of bad prose In 2008, the brothers ended their association with the Olsens' Dualstar and continued their clothing line which is 'on hold'; the items in their clothing lines are sold exclusively online.[28][29][30] Too busy - probably needs to be split into two sentences (and since we never heard of the start of the association it owuld help to have an eralier sentence on this). Then the sentence seems to contradict itself on the clothing line - first they continue it, then it is 'on hold (should be "on hold"), then it is internet only sales - which is correct?
I think I've rewritten this sentence right...
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
I don't *think* it has any of this... - 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch><>°° 05:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Still to do...
Look at model articles
Critical commentary on their roles
Done for as many critic reviews as I could find that actually mentioned them. - 22:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Some ref work
Done 21:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (at least for the most part)
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.
Done
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.
Done
Early Lives section - Done
Size - Should it be possible I would like to see this section expanded to at least be a somewhat larger paragraph.
Done - Could only find information about name of hospital they were born in and that their parents bought a house with some of their money, and they still live there.
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.
Done
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?
DoneCouldn't find anything, so it was removed.
Acting section Done (mostly)
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.
Done, I think.
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.
Partially Done; can't think of a way to write it without the "for" problem, but I have fixed the other problem. - 16:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Brand section Done
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.
Done - Honestly, there wasn't a whole lot about the brand in the article, but I added what I could.
Wording - Saying "continued their clothing line" seems a bit unprofessional to me. That could probably be worded a little better.
Done
Personal lives section Done
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.
Done
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.
Done - I've just removed all of it because I couldn't put it in encyclopedic context and it was around six years old.
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.
Done, I think
General Issues
Citations - Personally, I prefer having citations provided at the end of a sentence, rather than placed in the middle.
Done
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)
Still to do...
Rewrite "personal lives" section with more recent information if at all possible. (Like, seriously.)
Done
Should probably add some SLOD stuff to acting section if possible.
Fix timeline format.
History of deaf education in the United States
Other users: Please, if at all possible, do not do anything in this section. I want to avoid having to provide attribution for anyone but myself.
