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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Voorts ( talk · contribs) 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thanks for taking this review, Voorts. I believe this covers all your feedback:
... watching the doc at 1.5 speed and knowing that you won’t miss a single thing. Rewritten in encyclopedic language, this can be phrased as "[the reviewer] suggested that its pace was too slow".
They could have easily made me appear dumb, or like a bitch, so I purposefully covered up my skin.I've rewritten the summary as
... wear clothing that covered her skin .... The point is that she is not wearing 'revealing' clothing (which would code her a 'slut', 'bitch', 'dumb' etc.), but we can't use the judgemental word 'revealing' (etc.) per NPOV.
I imagine this is misstating what is said in the documentary. It's hard to believe that a major corporation with legal counsel would be unaware of a major US law affecting their business: this is not what the article said. The claim is not all executives were aware of the bill (rather than "all employees were unaware"). I've rephrased more tightly. Note also this source, which I found when searching on this and also incorporated in Production:
At one point, as she also recounts in Money Shot, Perdue remembers being in a meeting with the CEO and him not knowing about SESTA/FOSTA, the infamous 2018 legislation intended to curb sex trafficking online that had the effect of endangering sex workers. “I was raging,” she says.Rolling Stone. (We can't say it's a comment about the CEO, because in the documentary it's not so specific.)
How is this relevant? In what way did he compare Pornhub to The Sopranos?, I've replaced with the specific claim:
It's a racketeering case(57:55).
— Bilorv ( talk) 22:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Voorts ( talk · contribs) 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thanks for taking this review, Voorts. I believe this covers all your feedback:
... watching the doc at 1.5 speed and knowing that you won’t miss a single thing. Rewritten in encyclopedic language, this can be phrased as "[the reviewer] suggested that its pace was too slow".
They could have easily made me appear dumb, or like a bitch, so I purposefully covered up my skin.I've rewritten the summary as
... wear clothing that covered her skin .... The point is that she is not wearing 'revealing' clothing (which would code her a 'slut', 'bitch', 'dumb' etc.), but we can't use the judgemental word 'revealing' (etc.) per NPOV.
I imagine this is misstating what is said in the documentary. It's hard to believe that a major corporation with legal counsel would be unaware of a major US law affecting their business: this is not what the article said. The claim is not all executives were aware of the bill (rather than "all employees were unaware"). I've rephrased more tightly. Note also this source, which I found when searching on this and also incorporated in Production:
At one point, as she also recounts in Money Shot, Perdue remembers being in a meeting with the CEO and him not knowing about SESTA/FOSTA, the infamous 2018 legislation intended to curb sex trafficking online that had the effect of endangering sex workers. “I was raging,” she says.Rolling Stone. (We can't say it's a comment about the CEO, because in the documentary it's not so specific.)
How is this relevant? In what way did he compare Pornhub to The Sopranos?, I've replaced with the specific claim:
It's a racketeering case(57:55).
— Bilorv ( talk) 22:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)