Talk:Money Shot: The Pornhub Story

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Money Shot: The Pornhub Story was described by multiple reviewers as unsalacious? Source: Neither salacious ..., Viewers hoping for salaciousness or titillation, however, will be sorely disappointed, ... if you were hoping for something more salacious ... you'd be deeply disappointed
  • Reviewed: Mira (YouTuber)

Created by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 11:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Money Shot: The Pornhub Story; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv and Gog the Mild: The articles supporting the citation do not use the word unsalacious and it does not seem to be a word according to merriam-webster or Cambridge. We can change it to "not salacious" as that is supported by the reference. Bruxton (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your call. Wiktionary considers it a word. It doesn't seem that uncommon, nor especially recent - [1]. I was unaware that each word in a hook needed to be found in the/a source, indeed I had thought that good paraphrasing was the essence of Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I understood the meaning - so perhaps others will. In our hook we are quoting reviewers of the series and they apparently did not use the word unsalacious, but it describes many reviews. I will leave the word as it is and see if any other editors protest or tweak the hook in the prep or queue. Bruxton (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bruxton. To my eye we are not stating that they said it was unsalacious, we are saying that they described it as unsalacious. IMO they did. Other opinions are no doubt available. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Money Shot: The Pornhub Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

First assessment

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:

   I copy edited the article and left a few tags. Beyond that, the synopsis section needs better organization; it doesn't present as a coherent narrative of the documentary as written. The reception section also feels a bit unorganized; I'm not sure what the logic of the grouping of the reviews is. Topic sentences in each paragraph might help you reorganize better.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   Spot check (failed, please double check cites):

   • Ref 1a, 2a: good
   • Ref 3b: good
   • Ref 5a: good
   • Ref 12a: the source doesn't say that the film is too slow, just that it's not worth devoting 1.5 hours to.
   • Ref 17a: good
   • Ref 18a: good

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I don't see any reviews from right-wing media sources, which I imagine did not take kindly to the films message. Do any exist? What do they have to say?

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   Fair use rationale for the poster is fine.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Note: Rotten Tomatoes now shows 84% with 31 reviews. Please fix.

Thanks for taking this review, Voorts. I believe this covers all your feedback:

• I've updated the Rotten Tomatoes percentage and reworded all material that was tagged.
• Inline citations are not required for each sentence, even in the case of direct quotes. Take a look at WP:CITEDENSE. The convention I choose to follow is that (except for synopses) every piece of information is sourced to the next inline citation (or group of incites) that appears.
• On the Synopsis, this is a rare case of me agreeing with the reviewers: the documentary is so unstructured and sprawling that it is hard to group descriptive sentences into coherent paragraphs. I've done another copyedit.
• On the Reception, I'm reminded of Newton's third law of motion: uniquely among all reception sections I've ever written, it seems that for each reviewer opinion there exists an equal and opposite opinion. I've torn it apart and had another go at restructuring reviewer comments by theme.
• I used all the reviews I found from high-quality sources. I've not read it much but I gather that The Globe and Mail is generally socially conservative. I would imagine most right-wing broadsheets chose not to review it. If you've found some reviews not included that are usable, I'm happy to take a look.
• On ref 12a, the source recommends ... 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".
• On the "covering skin" idea, the source says: 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.
• On 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.)
• On 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)

Thank you. I will take a look this Wednesday evening. It's a busy week for me and I'm on vacation next week. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. Passing now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 9 August 2023 (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.