Talk:Fleshbot/GA1
Add topicAppearance
Latest comment: 1 month ago by H2so4aq in topic GA review
GA review
[edit]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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Damian Vo (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: H2so4aq (talk · contribs) 07:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I can review this article; should be able to finish this week. H2so4aq (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
A well-written and well-sourced article. Some minor issues still remain; article will be placed on hold for 7 days to allow for corrections.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Well-written and understandable. 1) Unclear why colwidth for Female Performer of the Year is different from the other sections (suggestion, consider fixing).
2) "Unlike many contemporary adult outlets..." may require additional sources in the body to verify that Fleshbot is still unique in this aspect.
3) Also needs work on WP:Words to watch: "witty and sophisticated" should be removed; the sourced quotes speak for themselves here. Same goes with "witty and journalistic" in the lead, and with describing the "Morph" and "CGI" sections as "unique".
- Well-written and understandable. 1) Unclear why colwidth for Female Performer of the Year is different from the other sections (suggestion, consider fixing).
- a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability):
- Fixed and removed the questionable bits. Damian Vo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section):
b (inline citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Spot checked sources; material appears quite well-sourced and no copyvio detected. 1) Replace source [90], as it is (almost) unreadable on archive.org and the original url is dead.
2) commentary from Dean in Wired saying commentaries, "...bridge the gap between technology, pop culture, and adult imagery" seems to be editorializing what the article said. Rework to make it more neutral and closer to the source's text.
3) Source [34] ("Fleshbot.com Sold to Site’s Editor Lux Alptraum", AVN) does not appear to mention Alptraum reinstating the Fleshbot Awards following a hiatus after 2011, where it is the only attached source.
- Spot checked sources; material appears quite well-sourced and no copyvio detected. 1) Replace source [90], as it is (almost) unreadable on archive.org and the original url is dead.
- a (reference section):
- I replaced the [90] link with another archive in 2009, which is readable without the noisy background. There are no other sources for this award season, sadly :( I also removed Dean's comment and the Alptraum bit. Damian Vo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Article appears to cover the major aspects of the site; the checked references do not reveal any major untouched facets.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Article appears to be neutral, but has some issues with WP:IMPARTIAL as detailed in point (1).

- Article appears to be neutral, but has some issues with WP:IMPARTIAL as detailed in point (1).
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Article is stable; only recent edits are copyedits or small WP:GF changes.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- The Fleshbot logo's license claims it is a simple geometric image, while it is clearly the site's logo. Either a free version should be used, or the license should be clarified to indicate (and justify) non-free use per WP:LOGO.

- The Fleshbot logo's license claims it is a simple geometric image, while it is clearly the site's logo. Either a free version should be used, or the license should be clarified to indicate (and justify) non-free use per WP:LOGO.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
H2so4aq (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking this up for review. It's been a while! I've addressed your comments above :D Damian Vo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the identified issues. Congratulations on a successful GA! H2so4aq (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
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.