Template:Did you know nominations/Clements twins

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 SL93 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Clements twins

(

)

... that the Clements twins have an estimated revenue of almost US$6000 per Instagram post? Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that the Clements twins were six months old during the first attempt to begin their modelling careers? Source: [2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lego Masters (French TV series)
- Comment: The paragraph about criticism probably needs a neutrality check, since the info might be undue... and other stuff

Created by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 07:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC). Length, references and history verified. Good to go. (Nevertheless, I am bit surprised that for an article with multiple sourced descriptions of how beautiful they are and how that's been a big selling point, there isn't a picture. I shouldn't have had to see it in the SCMP. There is ample fair-use justification here per FUC 8). Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

- @Pamzeis, Daniel Case, Bruxton, FishandChipper, and Animalparty: reopening this, per issues raised at Talk:Clements twins regarding (a) the tone of the article, and (b) the possible tabloid origin of some of the sourcing. The article has been orange-tagged as needing a rewrite. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been three weeks, so I'm pinging @Pamzeis, Daniel Case, Bruxton, FishandChipper, Animalparty, and Amakuru: to see what's needed to move this along. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: nothing really from my side, I would suggest that Pamzeis may need to seek some third opinion on the issues raised by FishandChipper on the talk page. If there is a general consensus (beyond the two participants in the discussion) that the rewrite tag can be removed, then the DYK can be progressed. I'd also caution FishandChipper to keep their discourse free from personal attacks. Comments like "are you actually mentally deficient?" and "Don't play dumb" have no place on Wikipedia, and you may be blocked if you use such language again. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I had no affiliation with the article but I too feel odd about a promotional article regarding the beauty of children (now 12). They are notable, but I am not sure it is great to promote children as beauties. I also think that one's self worth should not be all tied up in their external appearance. That was my two cents. But I can take a look at the article and see what kind of awkwardness and promotion should be trimmed. Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok @Amakuru and Sammi Brie:, I rewrote much, and took out puffery, cringy, and colloquial language. ~~I will review it if I am allowed.~~ Oops I see that @Daniel Case: is the reviewer. Perhaps they can return and check the edits I have made. Bruxton (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Clements twins in 2018

- There is also an image now, if reviewer and/or nominator are interested? --GRuban (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: are you able to come back and give another green tick? Bruxton (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

good again now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)