This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
A fact from The Cock Destroyers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 November 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
Overall: Both articles are new enough and long enough (Slag Wars doesn't register as 5x by the DYK tool, but comparing the pre-expansion version it is 7x). All of the hooks are cited and meet DYKINT, though my personal preference is ALT2 (ALT0 focuses on a third party, ALT1 relies on knowledge of Healy, and ALT3 is "people get famous, are featured on BBC"). Images both appear free, being extracted from free videos. No close paraphrasing found - Earwig flags one source at 53%, but that's because of the large block quote. Looks good to go! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The reason Slag Wars doesn't register as 5x is because DYKcheck picks up stuff from this version, which picks up around 563 false positive characters from an unformatted list.--Launchballer22:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was something like that. I do like this approach to 5x... cleaning up an article only to find it was disqualified by things beyond your control used to suck.Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello, I'm GhostRiver. I'll be reviewing this article against the good article criteria. By doing so, I am earning points for the WikiCup and the January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive. Although a quid pro quo review is not necessary, it is appreciated. You can see what open good article nominations I have here.
I will go through the article section by section checking it against the criteria. Once I have finished my review, I will place the article on hold, giving you seven days to respond. If you need more time, just reach out! While I'll always put the article on hold once it's ready for you to look at, you may start making changes before I complete my review. — GhostRiver21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need with More continuing to keep abreast of Anderson's life in the lede (it's fine in the body)
Cut.
was scuppered by too casual tone
Changed to 'thwarted'.
More announced Anderson's death in December 2023, though she had in fact died the month before again, for the lede you can just shorten this to "Anderson died in November 2023" (then say "paid tribute to her instead of repeating the surname)
in which both had sex don't see this part in the source
The ref was in the wrong place; I moved it.
to the pair's attitude to sex mirroring that of some queer men. → to the pair's "fuck without fear of judgment" attitude, which mirrored that of some queer men.
Not clear from first sentence that the Frock Destroyers are a musical group
Added.
While the Frock Destroyers parody is relevant, the Vice and Healy quotes don't really add to the article, especially if Healy's comment wasn't picked up by third-party sources
I would not include this section at all, given that there's only one single and the duo split up. Instead there should be prose about the single in the "Career" section
I must take you on on this. Any amount of prose about the single anywhere would be undue given that it received no coverage in RSs (with the possible exception of "the second series used the same theme tune as the first", which is already in Slag Wars's article and would be cruft here). MOS:DISCOGRAPHY suggests that all musical works should be listed in tables.
Seeing as the reviewer has been inactive, I'll take over this review. Just to stay organized I'll be starting the review from scratch. I use the GA Table and make most of my comments below the table so it is easier for nominators to respond to my feedback. I usually start with assessing images, stability, and sources then move on from there. I am fine with nominators responding to my feedback as it is given or all at the end. If you have any questions feel free to either ask me here or leave a message on my talk page! IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
For criteria 1, 3, and 4 I usually read through the article carefully and provide feedback as I read. This often looks like me suggesting things be reworded, asking for further explanation etc. Oftentimes I will ask questions about the article that come from a place of not being educated on the topic. Sometimes these questions don't have answers or don't result in any changes needing to be made. I ask these questions so I can better understand the topic and thus better provide feedback. Throughout this process, I often make small changes to grammar or punctuation. I try to make these changes by section and if you disagree with any changes I make feel free to revert them! IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have many concerns here related to prose as the first reviewer picked up most of the prose issues. The one thing I'm seeing is a bit of WP:PROSELINE. Nearly all of the paragraphs are started by stating the date. I'm considering this an optional change as it's not stopping me from understanding the text but some variation in sentence structure would be nice to see here. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:56, 30 January 2025 (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.
Top: Sophie Anderson in July 2022. Bottom: Rebecca More in July 2021.
Both articles are new enough and long enough (Slag Wars doesn't register as 5x by the DYK tool, but comparing the pre-expansion version it is 7x). All of the hooks are cited and meet DYKINT, though my personal preference is ALT2 (ALT0 focuses on a third party, ALT1 relies on knowledge of Healy, and ALT3 is "people get famous, are featured on BBC"). Images both appear free, being extracted from free videos. No close paraphrasing found - Earwig flags one source at 53%, but that's because of the large block quote. Looks good to go! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
