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 Dylan620talk 22:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
... that The Connor Brothers were believed to be two twenty-something artists from Brooklyn, but were actually two British art dealers from London? Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-features/11153746/The-Connor-Brothers-An-exclusive-interview.html "According to the biographies and press releases made available at their shows and online, the 'twenty-something twin brothers' ...were brought up in California within a secretive and controversial Christian cult ...Far from being escapees from a religious cult living in Brooklyn, the 'brothers', I was told, were two art dealers from London... "
Overall: Article is new enough and long enough, it has good sourcing, is neutral and is plagiarism free. I found the background section quite hard to follow, perhaps some subheadings could be introudced and the section on palaeonotlogy move to later in the article? There's also a bit of paraphrasing from th Telegraph: "as a form of therapy" & "a cult in their teens" which could be re-written? The hook is cited, and interesting. QPQ is done. Thanks for starting the article. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I've re-ordered the article because I can understand your point that there was too many varied things covered in "Background". It would be a shame if two very short phrases were treated as a copyright violation, I'm unsure how they could be reworded differently but mean the same thing. Would welcome a second opinion. Sionk (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Sionk: - the article looks great now, so much clearer! Thank you. I wasn't treating the phrases as a copyvio, more just pointing it out as part of wider improvements (this was unclear). Lajmmoore (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough, it has good sourcing, is neutral and is plagiarism free. I found the background section quite hard to follow, perhaps some subheadings could be introudced and the section on palaeonotlogy move to later in the article? There's also a bit of paraphrasing from th Telegraph: "as a form of therapy" & "a cult in their teens" which could be re-written? The hook is cited, and interesting. QPQ is done. Thanks for starting the article. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)