Talk:Bellesa/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 04:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this. — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I became preoccupied with something unexpected this past week. I will have the review by next Sunday, at most. Thank you for your patience. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Most Comfortable Chair: do you still plan to review this article? — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway through the review right now. — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

As per my comments in "Redesign and original productions", "Bellesa Films", "Bellesa Boutique (BBoutique)" and "Bellesa Plus" could be unbolded.
- Done — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Jacky St. James" → "St. James" at the second mention.
- Done — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Reception" section is not represented in the lead at the moment, and the lead could use a couple of sentences summarizing the AVN bit and general reception.
- Added a few brief sentences. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

Initial founding

"An NowThis News video drew attention to the site." — Brief description of the content of the video would be useful.
- Unfortunately, I haven't seen it. The company operated at the time solely through social media posts, I believe, so it would be hard to find the original video and not that great a source. The secondary source mentions the video but not its content, beyond that it was about Bellesa (which I've made more explicit). It may have just been a 15-second clip saying not much more than "This women's porn website exists". — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"XHamster" → "xHamster".
- Done — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Schnaidman said in September 2018 that the pirated content was uploaded to tube sites and embedded on Bellesa by users, that Bellesa "lost control of being able to monitor" uploads when the site's userbase grew, and that the host websites should have taken down the videos but "bigger tube sites don't care whatsoever" about piracy." — I would suggest splitting this into two or three sentences.
- Two sentences, one split into two clauses by a semicolon. Let me know if it's still too complex to read easily. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link — "Bustle"
- Done — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Suzannah Weiss's positive profile of Shnaidman for Bustle profile" — Is slightly awkward sounding. Perhaps "Shnaidman's positive profile in Bustle by Suzannah Weiss" or "Suzannah Weiss's positive Bustle profile of Shnaidman" would work better?
- Done: the word "profile" definitely shouldn't have been in their twice. I've gone with the latter and made some other changes to hopefully make the sentence more readable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign and original productions

Unlink — "AVN"
- Done — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should "Bellesa House" and "Bellesa Blind Date" be unbolded, since "The Collective", "Bellesa Plus", "Bellesa Productions", "Bellesa Boutique" are not in bold in the prose?
- Done — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex toys

"Their first original product, the AirVibe, was released in November 2020" and "The AirVibe is a vibrator that uses suction and G-spot stimulation" would read better if merged.
- Moved to be consecutive sentences. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"launched the Demi Wand sex toy with American singer, songwriter and actor Demi Lovato" — perhaps "American singer, songwriter and actor" could be removed or shortened?
- Now "musician and actor"—so the article is standalone, I feel it's important to say something of who Lovato is. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Unlink — "The Daily Dot"; "Bustle"
- Done — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should "Mashable" be without italics, as it is in the article's Wikipedia entry?
- This is always a weird one as I'm not sure why sometimes we have these names unitalicised in article first sentences. Sometimes it just feels right to me for it to be unitalicised and I can't place why. In this case, I've deferred to the main article and removed italics. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"However, she praised its discreet packaging and price. However," — Use of "however" could be avoided in one of them.
- Changed the second one to "In contrast". — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Spick and span!

That will be all — as always, great content work, Bilorv! — The Most Comfortable Chair 19:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair: I've replied to each of these, I think. Let me know if further work is needed on any points. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article flows well, is referenced appropriately, covers all major aspects and is fair in its representation — it meets the criteria. Thanks to Bilorv for their diligent work. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]