Talk:GirlsDoPorn/GA1

GA nomination successful following sufficient improvements within a reasonable time

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall review this nomination. Expect initial comments within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with the lead section.....

Lead

Is it known when the site first launched?
- Now active from 2009 to 2020 (court documents say it was founded in 2009).
I'd be more specific and say this was closed down in January 2020. If you can find a specific date (it's not quite clear when in the month from what was given), then that would be nice to add.
- I don't think a specific date can reliably be given as it was removed without announcement. Added: The website was removed in January 2020.
When Matthew Wolfe was a co-owner, I'm pretty sure the same goes for Michael Pratt when "co-" indicates multiple owners.
The channel on Pornhub actually gathered 672M views by July 2019, and then over 677M as of that October. Let's go with the latter as it's a more recent figure.
- I think it's false precision to use more than 2 significant figures but I've changed 670 to 680.
"some [of the women] were sexually assaulted and in at least one case raped" should just be "some were sexually assaulted and in at least one case raped"

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed so far, thanks for the initial comments. I'm sure you know by now, but just to say, the subject matter is very disturbing so don't push yourself too hard and be kind to yourself after reading it. — Bilorv (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

I'm not sure it's really relevant when/where Pratt, Wolfe, or Garcia were born
- I don't think we say for Garcia. In the second paragraph maybe I could emphasise that Pratt worked in the porn industry from 2000–7 in New Zealand; him and Wolfe being from New Zealand originally is really the same fact, so I think it's both or neither, though they don't have to be introduced parenthetically on first mention of name if that's the issue. I think ages are useful context but I can remove these.
Doug Wiederhold isn't mentioned in either of the attributed citations, but I fout him in these links (feel free to use either one)
- Done.
"Attorney Daniel Kaplan also represented GirlsDoPorn in the lawsuit" feels a bit out of place in the first paragraph, and would be better for one that talks about this site getting sued
- Moved to "Lawsuit filing".
Something about "of" from "Pratt conceived of GirlsDoPorn" doesn't seem to fit in well, so I'd remove that word
- It's "conceived the idea for" in the source. I think "conceived" implies action was taken rather than just an idea forming. Let me know if you think "Pratt began planning GirlsDoPorn ...", which I've changed to, works.
  - That's perfectly fine SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure The Daily Beast is a trustworthy source, and it's not needed within this seciton's first paragraph either way when conception/founding are sufficiently covered here
- Listed on WP:RSP in green, though Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. I've removed this inline citation because as you say, other sources cover it. The Daily Beast is cited inline a fair few times later but I don't think it's ever the sole source for a fact, so one could either say that its statements are not that controversial (it references sources clearly in the two articles currently used), or that it's redundant. I'd prefer to keep but if you think it should be removed then it's not a big deal.
"TeenieFlixx" should have 3 x's instead of 2
- Very good spot.
"84,000" → "84,035" (what both citations use)
- This would be false precision.
  - Not sure what makes you say that, but perhaps you could go with "over 84,000" or "more than 84,000" SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll give my reasoning. These are figures for the number of new "visitors" to a website, but analytics can't take account of whether multiple different people are visiting the website on a shared device; whether a previous visitor has multiple devices or got a new device; whether a visitor is genuinely new or has deleted relevant tracking information (e.g. deleting cookies, using private browsing; not quite sure how analytics work in these cases). If 84,035 was an exact figure then 84,000 would be within 0.04% accuracy, undoubtedly more than is justified by the confidence intervals; but using an exact value 84,035 implies that the true statistic being measured is known exactly, which is certainly not the case for these data. In regards to policy, I believe this is appropriate per MOS:UNCERTAINTY's Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. As someone with a bit of statistics education, I think it's important that we get due levels of precision right in Wikipedia, even though mainstream media are often misleadingly wrong. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case, how about using "approximately", "around", or "roughly" for the stats to show these were rounded numbers? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Good idea, thanks. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Content on other websites" will come up next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to or implemented each of these. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content on other websites

"680 million views on Pornhub" seems like WP:SYNTH the given citation actually says "more than 677 million" with no indication on whether its totals reached/surpassed 680M
- It's meant to be a statistic accurate to two significant figures, which I believe is appropriate rounding, rather than a "milestone" or "achievement" that was surpassed. Similar reasons to that above of the "84,000" figure, but with different reasons for uncertainty.
  - See my above comment on rounding SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something from these, it appears that Pornhub took down their channel for GirlsDoPorn in October 2019, not August
- Thanks, this was a mistake.
"100,000 accounts" is a stretch; only "nearly 99,000 subscribers" is known
- As above, statistic within 1–2% accuracy. Can round to 99,000 instead if you think two significant figures is better, but I wasn't confident that the source's "nearly 99,000" meant "99,000 to two significant figures".
  - That would be preferable with an indication that this isn't an exact number SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, done. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much wrong with that section overall. I hope I can say the same with "Reported practices" (which will probably be done one subsection at a time after I get through its first paragraph). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied to these. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reported practices

I'm not sure it's appropriate to link to sections within the article as you did with the "(see #Legal action)" bit
- Removed. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 23:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, is the first sentence intended to serve as an overview for this section?
- In a way; I just thought it would be good to make clear the provenance of the information at the start rather than introducing new sources throughout. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 23:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casting process

Maybe there's something I missed, but I can't seem to find any specific geographical range here for where the Craigslist ads were distributed
- This was originally sourced correctly to a San Diego Reader article ([1] "The ads were posted on Craigslist pages in cities such as Las Vegas, San Diego, Dallas, Alberta, Canada, Los Angeles, as well as in populous counties in North Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, and Tennessee") but got lost in a reshuffle; fixed. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 23:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "Matt" as an alias, and it seems like "Ben" was something Wolfe used, not Pratt
- Thanks, removed and fixed. I think there's some other sources with more names but I reckon we've got enough examples. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 23:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure when I'll get to "Filming process", but here's more to work on in the meantime. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filming process

From "were to stay in four-star hotels", I think "stayed" would be better than "were to stay"
"There are reports"..... maybe were is more appropriate as this refers to a past event
It's probably worth noting the DOJ's bit on harrassment ("some victims were harassed and ridiculed and estranged from their families as a result; and some were sexually assaulted and in at least one case raped")
- The quote "some [of the women] were sexually assaulted and in at least one case raped" is already in there and the other parts are covered under "Outcomes". — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A former employee testified that only 50% of women"..... I'd specify this was Val Moser

So far looking pretty good. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three done, one reply. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes

Judge Enright's first name (Kevin) should be used when this is when we first introduce him within the article
Add a comma after "cases" in "and in at least four cases women involved attempted suicide", also the given citation says "contemplated suicide", not that they all necessarily tried to follow through on such thoughts.

A nearly flawless subsection. The "Legal action" will also probably be done one subsection at a time once I begin going through that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First one done, second one now: Others reported experiencing panic attacks, depression, self-harming and, in at least four cases, suicide ideation. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 07:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legal action

Lawsuit filing

"asked or tried to leave"..... perhaps you could collectively sum this up as "wanted to leave" or "opted to leave"
- Changed to "wanted to leave" (I think "opted" implies that they succeeded). — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I can't seem to find any indication in here that Brian Holm was "the first and the main legal counsel" for the women, only that he, John O'Brien, and Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP (among others) were on their side
- You're right. I think the information is true but I don't have a good source. Changed to the lesser claim Brian Holm was a lead attorney, with John O'Brien as co-counsel., which the Courthouse source and a couple of Vice ones verify. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay! Have at it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trial and charges

The "malice, fraud or oppression" ruling actually seems to be from January 2019, not the year 2018 when Pratt filed for bankruptcy (if I'm reading things right)
- The NBC San Diego source does say January 2019 but it also says The trial was set for March 8, 2018, but on the day the judge issued a tentative ruling finding merit to the claims that the men engaged in “malice, fraud or oppression,” Pratt filed for bankruptcy.. XBiz says [around September 2018] The judge issued a ruling finding merits that Pratt and his associates had engaged in “malice, fraud or oppression.” Pratt responded by filing for bankruptcy and the case was put on hold. I think what we say is correct but I could reword it a bit to get rid of the dates and just mention the two events if you think the sourcing isn't strong enough here. — Bilorv (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid repetion of "In _______", you could replace "In October 2019" with "The following month" or "The next month"
There's nothing remotely "civil" about this trial or the crimes it involves! I'd get rid of such a highly misleading description. It would be better to simply say "the trial", which on its own is also more concise.
- Done, a misunderstanding of American law on my part. — Bilorv (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something doesn't feel right about "Prosecutors also collated evidence of witness harassment, a U.S. attorney finding evidence that defendants called the plaintiffs and falsely posed as journalists". It might be missing a "with" after "harassment" or perhaps could be split into separate sentences after that word.
- Is this better: Prosecutors also collated evidence of witness harassment: a U.S. attorney found evidence that defendants called the plaintiffs to falsely pose as journalists. — Bilorv (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there! My next batch will most likely be the last. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit outcomes

With only two sentences, the first paragraph seems rather brief compared to the second one. Super short paragraphs like this are discouraged as they make the flow of text look choppy. I'd either merge them or rearrange some text to balance out the sizes.
Replace the semi-colon from "Additionally, in the future to give participants copies of the contracts before arriving; they should state" with a comma. Furthermore, I'd place "in the future" after "arriving", and "should state" is outdated when the site has shut down. A better choice might be "were ordered to state".
- Oof, this sentence was a mess. Changed to Additionally, they were ordered in future to state in recruitment postings that videos will be posted online, give participants copies of the contracts before arriving and ensure that participants sign documents indicating that they understand their names or personal information may be used. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on what happened with the subsequent lawsuit one lone woman filed? I imagine it didn't go anywhere when the site ceased operations shortly afterwards.
- I believe it's still ongoing, actually. It could be a while before anything further is heard. I've changed the text to "another woman sued the men involved with GirlsDoPorn" because she's suing the men directly. I also believe the point here is that the men still own the copyright to all the videos they produced except those of the 22 plaintiffs in the other case, and this 23rd woman wants copyright transferred to her so she can request that porn tube sites take down the videos. I believe this is the full extent of the publicly available knowledge about it. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, your change will suffice for now, though if you do come across any updates then please insert them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Include accessdates for all URLs (I see three that are missing these)
XBIZ should always be in all-caps without italics
Not sure about italicizing "Court Listener"
Don't italicize Triple J either, and remove the "ABC Online" part from it
"The" is part of the titles for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Washington Post
I don't see a point in including "Further references" when neither are cited at all within the article text
- They're not cited inline but they are additional high-quality references which verify some of the material in the article. I can remove if you feel strongly. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Definitely best to remove unless you implement them as inline citations SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, done. — Bilorv (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - With that, I can now pass! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Prose: Needs a bit more copyediting
Referencing: Some citations need their formatting adjusted
Coverage: It looks incomplete to mention a lawsuit without discussing its verdict (even if dismissed by the court due to site closure)
Neutrality: No bias detected
Stability' All recent changes have been in accordance with this review
Media: Is it possible to feature a site logo on this page, or perhaps something of Pratt/Wolfe?
Verdict: Effective immediately, this nomination is on hold. I'll give you seven days to address the remaining points. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the media, it's something I've considered before. There are no free images of Pratt or Wolfe (or anyone mentioned by name) that I know of and I believe we don't allow non-free images of living people. I honestly don't know if GirlsDoPorn had a logo but if it did then it's not covered in reliable secondary sources or even primary sources that still exist, so we would not be able to verify that any logo is genuine with certainty. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point on a lack of images, and we indeed should avoid using non-free uploads of living people, especially whenever free alternatives exist. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.