Talk:Belle Delphine/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Will give this a review shortly. Though you might have to bear with me, since it's my first review. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments are based on page as of Special:Permalink/1038285995 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * General comments
 * There are several duplicate links. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt will help identify them.
 * Re ahegao face image: Captions do not need inline citations. Better to put that directly into the prose.


 * Early life
 * and described her old cosplay posts as "low-res and dimly lit" - source doesn't seem to say she described them as such?


 * Online career - Early years and Instagram modelling
 * Suggest moving FN10 to the comma, since it seems to be supporting the reg date.
 * The commas in this sentence after the time-based phrases make for awkward reading. I would remove them, or reword the sentence altogether.
 * Is FN11 (self-published) necessary since FN12 supports the text?
 * which had a self-proclaimed "weird elf kitty girl" aesthetic suggest changing 'self-proclaimed', reads awkwardly.
 * , where supporters could receive access to self-described "lewd" photosets ditto
 * noted that her style in this second video is more in-line with The source contrasts this second video with the style in the first video, but that comparison isn't really apparent in usage here. You might want to make it more clear, but it is up to you.
 * In the autumn of 2018, Delphine's popularity notably increased. I'd drop the comma.
 * where her "ironic approach to online thotting" was praised as "genius" and "brilliant performance art" I'd make it more clear who praised her approach.
 * Link "thotting"; interwiki to wikt if there's no appropriate article
 * I'd probably suggest merging paragraphs 2 and 3, since the first portion of 3 is pretty tightly related to the popularity increase. Perhaps paragraph break at As her popularity grew, Delphine began to draw controversy for her content. But it's up to you.
 * Her content began to notably and frequently include ahegao facial expressions, exaggerated expressions that signify an orgasm often featured in adult anime. I don't think a comma is the appropriate punctuation here, but not 100% sure.
 * adult content creator Indigo White alleged that while underage, Delphine passed off the photos of other sex workers as her own. add comma before "while underage"
 * Innovative Artists and Plain Jane Investments additionally list an individual named Joshua John Gray, with Gray resigning from Innovative Artists in 2019. Who is Gray?
 * Innovative Artists was formerly named under Belle Delphine Limited. remove "under"


 * References
 * Add a Retrieved date to FN4, or use FN5.
 * Either repeat FN5 for both subscriber counts for the awards, or remove its first inline usage and only use it on the update date.
 * Why is FN9 (Business Insider) duplicated? Same for FN55.
 * I'd note that Business Insider and Insider are not really considered reliable sources (not unreliable, either), but I don't see anything particularly troubling with their usage here at a first pass.
 * Use of FN18, FN19, FN20 (company information via endole, probably just republished Companies House) is not appropriate for info relating to living people. It is okay for saying a company name changed.
 * FN26 (Meaww) is not appropriate for use in BLPs.
 * FN31 (International Business Times) is generally unreliable.

All above seem resolved. Better to tick them off as you go in future, easier to keep track. More: (FN numbers now based on Special:Permalink/1040502239)
 * The article says "Use British English" and the talk page says "Use American English". Which one is it?
 * British English should be used. Changed talk page to reflect that. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pornhub account and GamerGirl Bath Water stunts
 * Delphine's GamerGirl Bath Water stunt shouldn't be capitalised, as it's not a proper noun.
 * I figured it is a proper noun. A lot of the sourcing capitalises it that way and she sold it as a product with that capitalisation as well. Should it be captialised as "gamer girl bath water" instead? Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the sources only capitalise it in quotation marks and on first usage only, probably because that's how she advertised it, but in most usages it shouldn't be capitalised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I found a few sources that capitalize all usages / usages that aren't in quotes(such as: ) but I also found sources that don't do that at all, so I kept the GamerGirl Bath Water stylization/capitalization intact in places where it's quoted or makes sense otherwise, and for other areas where it wouldn't make sense, I tried alternative's such as "Delphine's bath water product" or "The product was marketed". I figure this should be alright, but I was wondering about your opinion on that. Soulbust (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Instagram account ban and social media hiatus
 * Delphine tweeted an image of mugshot of herself needs copyedit
 * Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FN35: The Tab is not RS.
 * removed The Tab as a source. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did the Met make a statement on her alleged arrest at all?
 * No they didn't really; I added their official statement (or perhaps it can be interpreted as a lack of one). Soulbust (talk)


 * Transition to OnlyFans and pornographic content
 * Why is International Business Times Singapore a RS?
 * I figured I should just add the fact that's a localized version of the IBT publication. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be a RS. Isn't ESPN Brasil just as much of a RS as ESPN for example? Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Different editorial teams so not necessarily, but this wouldn't help the case for the Singapore version because WP:RSP documents the consensus for International Business Times as being "generally unreliable" (WP:IBTIMES) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the IBT Singapore reference. I also added an Insider source that properly cites the sentence. Soulbust (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any other sources for the staged rape thing? It would be good if it can be sourced to other RS as well, to aid verifiability, especially as the original tweets are now deleted.
 * I added coverage from The Daily Dot. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Surrealist eroticism of content
 * The intentionally "weird" aspect of Delphine's social media presence has been often noted in media coverage of her. Unclear what this is getting at, and the quoted term doesn't appear in the following source.
 * I added some references here that both source her being self-aware/intentional in the "weird"ness of her content, as well as source media outlets referring to her as weird. Moved up the Complex source to better frame this section of the article as conveying the media reception to her content as commentary on its weird/satirical elements. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , enough to where Business Insider stated reword
 * Don't know if I made it too wordy, but I reworded this portion. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Progress
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Issues above.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * No copyvios. Just extensive use of quotes but likely OK; haven't checked closer yet.
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Re ahegao face image: Captions do not need inline citations. Better to put that directly into the prose.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Re ahegao face image: Captions do not need inline citations. Better to put that directly into the prose.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Notes/comments
Hi,, thank you so much for your review of the article! I really appreciate it.

So I addressed many of your suggestions with some recent edits. However, the Joshua John Gray section is a problem for me because I'm not sure how to expand on his relation to Delphine in the article. He has been alleged to be her boyfriend. I added this sentence: Gray has been reported to be dating Delphine.[3] but am open to removing mentions of Gray completely as I'm not sure it adds to the article at the moment, especially if the PopBuzz or the HITC sources aren't adequate for this information. Also open to removing the section about the businesses, except for leaving just information about Belle Delphine Limited being incorporated and then renamed (if that's okay?).

As for FN4, I'm not sure I can add an access date. When I go to edit, that reference doesn't show up in the wiki html and I believe it's a byproduct of the YouTuber infobox module.

F9 and F54 are duplicated because I included older archives of those articles. They were updated over time and their titles and content are considerably different. If this is unnecessary, then I can just included the current links as the references.

If there's anything else or if there's something I missed let me know. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's generally better to avoid celebrity relationship speculation; I'm not sure if HITC is reliable off the top of my head, but I suspect not, and the nature of the content probably has BLP implications (given that celebrity gossip sites do a lot of this 'Fans linked to ___' speculation). While Companies House is a reliable source for Belle Delphine Limited being incorporated and renamed, it's not reliable for saying that corporation has a connection to this Belle Delphine. Companies House does no authentication of identities. If there's no reliable source making the connection it would probably have to be left out entirely.
 * That's fine re FN9 and FN54; was just curious why that's done. If they're considerably different then it's best to include both.
 * I haven't checked beyond the 'Online career - Early years and Instagram modelling' section as of yet; will get around to that soon. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry that took so long, but I was finally able to address your newest comments. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging you, as I forgot to do that earlier. Soulbust (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Status query
ProcrastinatingReader, Soulbust, where does this review stand? It's been over five weeks since the last post here and to the article. Can you get this moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of outstanding issues (above) awaiting response, but otherwise it is good for a pass. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sorry about that. I've been busy with work outside of Wikipedia and I also just simply missed your new comments when I checked back on this page a while back. I was left wondering why there wasn't an update, when there definitely was. That's my bad. But I addressed the outstanding comments and will be waiting for any more feedback. Thank you! Soulbust (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * References