Bonnie Blue (actress) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 30, 2025 Good article nominee Not listed February 21, 2026 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 25, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a journalist attributed Bonnie Blue going viral to the "outrage economy"?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Nottinghamshire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire 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.NottinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject NottinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject NottinghamshireNottinghamshire Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Pornography Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women 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 Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance). Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Australia Low‑importance Bonnie Blue (actress) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Fiji (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fiji, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.FijiWikipedia:WikiProject FijiTemplate:WikiProject FijiFiji

I’m not well‑versed in how to submit an edit request, but there’s a new article to mine from The Times that’s much more comprehensive than the Wiki page at present: https://web.archive.org/web/20250726142038/https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/sex-relationships/article/bonnie-blue-interview-1000-men-normalisation-porn-dd6rcq8gq
A recurring theme is how Billinger commodifies sexual violence against women.
Incidentally, the term ‘gangbang’ seems to have been omitted from this page, yet it’s used multiple times in sources (such as The Times), including by Billinger herself. 2A02:C7C:E4F8:F800:E5FD:4ABB:958B:7E6C (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With her toughness, drive, looks and engaging personality, Tia reminds me of the flinty young women who win The Apprentice. This interview is written as an opinion piece and is therefore not reliable for factual claims or criticism of a living person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly (BLP violation removed) 1999, but I cannot find a more reliable source than her IMDb and, per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, it's not a reliable source for BLP as most actor info is user-submitted.

If anyone can find a better source for her birthday, appreciate it. Thanks! ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious, just from looking at her, that she is in her 40s. This is not a 26-year-old woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-93892-5 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

see this video

youtu.*be/CuDZxnux2YU?*

delete the * Mencarikebenaran (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We know it is, but we need reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antara News is state-owned media, not a reliable source generally, and not an independent source in this case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

imporisonment is misspelled, should be imprisonment ~2025-39724-63 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent incident in Bali, there's no reason to prefer Indonesian sources for events in Indonesia anymore than we would prefer North Korean sources for events in that country. Instead we should use sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:SOURCE.

We also prefer English-language sources per WP:NONENG, especially compared to detik.com (which is little more than churnalism) and Media Indonesia (which is merely recycled content from WP:NYPOST and WP:THESUN).

The recent edits which I reverted also added tabloid news in the form of Hull Daily Mail (which appears to have since been deleted) while removing the generally reliable source WP:THEINDEPENDENT. All of which resulted in an extremely biased and sensationalistic presentation unsuitable for a BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know who 'we' is, and your reference to North Korea is frankly ludicrous. I have removed the Media Indonesia source and restored The Independent article. Your characterisation of this paragraph as "extremely biased and sensationalistic" is absolutely absurd, especially given the subject matter. Could you identify the part you think is "extremely biased and sensationalistic"?

"In December 2025, she was arrested in Indonesia and her Suzuki Carry "Bonnie Blue's Bangbus" seized. Fourteen Australian male tourists widely described as "Barely Legal Schoolies", aged between 19 and 40, were initially arrested but later had their status changed to witnesses, while Blue and her team of two British and one Australian staff remain under investigation pending a decision on deportation or prosecution. Blue is suspected of violating Indonesian immigration, pornography and electronic transaction law." Sumbuddi (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I came here from the BLP noticeboard page. Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source per the RS noticeboard. In addition for BLP pages generally speaking you need even higher quality sources than those deemed "acceptable" cfor non-living persons pages so daily mail couldn't be used here in any context. So @Sangdeboeuf appears to be in the right for removing it. I am aware it's extremely frustrating @Sumbuddi. It looks like @Sumbuddi you are looking for reliable sources pertaining to an Indonesian immigration dispute with Blue? I may be able to do some searches--the other question would be does it qualify as WP:DUE on this page--aka is there enough WP:SIGCOV of the incident involving Blue to warrant page addition. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you said, but WP:SIGCOV if off-topic, I think you're looking for something like WP:PROPORTION. Just because something is online, it doesn't necessarily fit in a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah--got it. Thank you for the correction I'll read up on WP:PROPORTION. Thanks. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Daily Mail was never in the article. It was the "Hull Daily Mail", which is a local newspaper, with no connection of any kind to "The Daily Mail". I have in any case already removed the link to "Hull Daily Mail" to avoid further unnecessary confusion.

This is not purely an "immigration dispute", but a wider legal one. I still have no idea what the BLP concern is supposed to be here - it is clear that Miss Blue welcomes controversy for publicity reasons and there does not seem to be any dispute about the facts either. The latest news is that there will be a further hearing this week. [1] Sumbuddi (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm @Sumbuddi found your article which was posted on the Hull Daily Mail three days ago but seems to have been removed from the site since (tried clicking on it got a 404 "this page was removed" error) as for Hull Daily Mail it's not on the RS/Perennial Sources list here: [[2]] which isn't necessarily a bad thing--but if that's the case the next best place is to search to see if it was ever mentioned at all on the RS noticeboard. Which I did--but mostly it brings up "Daily Mail" (for obvious reasons) here: [[3]] So anyway I did a quick search for "Bonnie Blue Indonesia" and can dump what I found to see if it's of any use to anyone: Newsweek did cover the arrest but Newsweek is generally discouraged from BLP (but use your own judgement): [[4]] The London Evening Standard covered it: [[5]] but on the RS list it's yellow and says "no consensus on reliability" so you can get dinged for that on BLP pages. The New York Post also covered it--but unfortunately they are red. I do think given the situation--up to 15 years in Indonesian prison is a pretty serious situation more outlets that are deemed "green" may cover this soon--but you may want to wait it out in the mean time. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Miss Blue welcomes controversy for publicity reasons. So what? Wikipedia is not a tabloid or gossip site. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy, regardless of users' personal feelings about them or their chosen occupation.

Who cares that her vehicle was a Suzuki Carry "Bonnie Blue's Bangbus", or that the other arrestees were described as Barely Legal Schoolies? This kind of trivial and sensationalistic detail does not belong in an encyclopedia. None of the sources I have looked at even mention the phrase "Barely Legal Schoolies" or the make/model of the vehicle, which means this information was either taken from the deleted Hull Daily Mail article or is simply original research.

The entire list of suspected crimes (violating Indonesian immigration, pornography and electronic transaction law) also goes against the policy on living people who are public figures unless multiple, reliable (English-language) third party sources have discussed each of them in detail. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC) edited 08:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"English-language" is not a WP-criteria here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NONENG, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. In this case the available English-language sources are certainly of better quality for the reasons stated above (churnalism and recycling of tabloid content). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a tedious ruleslawyer so I'll leave you to edit 'your page' in peace. Have fun!Sumbuddi (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not. "rules lawyering" is how you push for these kind of edits about living people. Trade (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way this is worded in Wikivoice makes it sound as if the claim that the participants were unable or incapable of giving consent was a fact Trade (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the phrase recruited to perform [in her videos]. Hopefully that shifts the emphasis to the recruitment and not the participants themselves. The article doesn't state or imply the young men were unable to consent. Nonetheless, many people have indeed questioned whether consent could be fully given, per Marie Claire, SBS News, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan, among other less reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: MOS:OVERSECTION says "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." I think a standalone section for three sentences (less than two lines on my monitor) introduces clutter.--Launchballer 10:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideal, but it's a more logical page organization. Having a single section for Early life and stunts combines disparate material inelegantly under one heading IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure 'early life' is disparate with the beginning of her career, but you're right about the rest and I've moved that into chronological order.--Launchballer 02:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Blue .. claimed to have had sex with 1,057 men in 12 hours." Now 12 hours is 720 minutes. Can we really believe that it's physically possible for one woman to have sex with different men at a rate of more than one a minute over such an extended period? Even if we go for 24 hours it still seems incredible - and what about food, drink, toilet breaks, etc.? I think one of the reports talked about men queueing for 3-minute sessions, which is maybe a bit more reasonable? rossb (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we attribute. The Tab is not a reliable source but it claimed in January that groups of five had two minutes, single men had between 30 and 45 seconds, and Blue had two three-minute breaks. (By the way, Sparxxx's 919 record may very well be wrong; Adult Industry News reported in December 1999 that Sabrina Johnson set a record of 1025.)--Launchballer 17:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: I used accurate edit summaries on every single edit I made yesterday. Which bits do you think were not adequately explained?--Launchballer 06:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an entire paragraph which read:

Blue claims to have had sex with married men who were unsatisfied with their spouses, and has made several podcast appearances in which she blamed women for their partners' infidelity; many viewers expressed concern that Blue's comments were misogynistic and contributed to sexual objectification of women. [...] Blue has also been accused of manipulating young men into performing sex on camera and of not considering the long-term impact on such men.^[1][2] Blue remarked in an interview with Cosmopolitan that it was "stupid" to question whether the young men in her videos understood the consequences, saying "we've got no problem sending 18-year-olds to war".^[3]

It's unclear to me how any of the above is either a tautology or WP:V failure as you claimed.

You also removed the sentence:

Blue was denied entry to Australia, where she had announced she was seeking "barely legal" 18-year-old male volunteers to film sexual content during schoolies week in November 2024

along with one of the cited references,^[4] with the vague explanation "dealt with Australia above", which does not explain why this specific information was removed and not just reorganized.

You removed a large chunk of text with the explanation "trim massive violations of WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV, and WP:SUMMARY". I don't have a problem with this per se; however, at the same time you added the sentence Blue spent much of late 2025 on tour,^[5] as if this were merely routine information and not promotional in any way.

A minor nitpick, but the statement The Daily Telegraph wrote that it was unclear whether Blue was involved in creating the advertisements is clunky; newspapers do not write things, they are where things are written by human authors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how any of the above justifies throwing out the whole editing session and have put the rest back. To take your concerns point by point:

• "Blue [...] infidelity" - I put this article into chronological order and moved these into where they belonged. This was still there.
• "Many [...] such men" - That she was criticised remained in the article; I readded the specific allegations.
• "Blue [...] war" - This would need summarising anyway, but what that would need summarising to is already in the other Cosmopolitan piece, so this is unnecessary.
• "Blue [...] 2024" - I'd moved the Australia stuff to earlier as The Times gave me the impression that's where it went, although I've since discovered it was almost certainly referring to an additional trip in 2023. I've put this sentence back in for now, although this needs more research.
• "Blue [...] tour" - Trimmed this for now, although she did receive significant criticism for this and that's worth mentioning. This also needs more research.
• "The [...] wrote" - added author.--Launchballer 08:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an actress, why is this added behind her name? ~2026-20785-0 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic actresses are still actresses. There were discussions requesting that this be moved to "Bonnie Blue" on 3 June 2025 and 30 July 2025 and both times consensus was to not move. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation.--Launchballer 16:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 11:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Crystal Drawers (talk · contribs) 16:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ll be reviewing this article. I’ll most likely add some comments tonight, but please ping me if I don’t have all comments done by Friday, as I’m leaving for a trip tomorrow and might forget. Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 16:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have forgotten @Crystal Drawers:.--Launchballer 14:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, I apologize, I’m on that trip I mentioned and it slipped my mind. Comments to come later in the day Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 14:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "and attended that year's schoolies week with the intention of handing out business cards with details of her OnlyFans account." — This seems like a bit too much info for something so seemingly unimportant in just the 2nd sentence, trim it down a bit because I don’t see what this adds

I trimmed it. Her being criticised for it was why she went on to have lots of sex with students, so I added that.

• "and for comments critics have described as promoting misogyny and sexual objectification of women." — Change to "and for comments that critics have described as promoting both misogyny and the sexual objectification of women."

Added 'that' and 'the'.

• "copycat events" isn’t very encyclopedic, maybe "similar events" or "similar activities"?

Changed to 'similar', both in the lead and in the body.

• "She then mounted a much-criticised freshers' week tour and claimed to have had unprotected sex with about 400 men in one day." — I don’t get a lot of this ("mounted"? "freshers' week"?, a lot of this seems like gibberish to someone uninformed like me), could you try to either wiki link some stuff or make it more accessible to people who have no knowledge on this kind of stuff?

Freshers' week is already linked in the first paragraph. To 'mount' something means to organise or initiate, changed to 'organised'.

• "Pornhub announced in December 2025 that Blue was the fourth most searched for porn star that year" — Consider "It was later announced by Pornhub that Blue was the fourth most searched for porn star of 2025"

I think it makes more sense to leave this sentence until last and this isn't in chronological order (the unprotected gangbang happened last week).

• Shouldn’t "porn star" be either "pornstar" or "porn-star"?

Wiktionary has it at "porn star".

@Crystal Drawers:; you said in this edit that you would finish this by Wednesday and it's now nearly 5am on Thursday.--Launchballer 04:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still Wednesday where I am, so I’ll quickly finish this up within the hour to stay true to my word ;) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 05:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Prose review is done, ping me when done so I can check the sources Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 05:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "in Stapleford in Nottinghamshire" — Consider "in Stapleford, Nottinghamshire"

Changed. Do you think the article needs a link to Nottinghamshire?

• Is it known why she became a webcam model or did it just happen, because the jump to it is a bit abrupt

I added a clause from Personal life (and moved another there).

• "and made US$5,000 in a week." — I’m assuming this is within the first week, so consider "and made US$5,000 in her first week." Also, why is it US$5,000 and not just $5,000?

Changed both.

• "she began recruiting men over the age of 18" — I’d add "exclusively" in there

I think that would introduce a tautology.

• Two uses of "at which she was joined by [name]" in a row, change one

I reworded the paragraph to need neither.

• "with a student and then his father" — consider "with a student, followed by his father"

I think the original flows better, though perhaps I'm missing something.

• "attempt at filming" is used twice in a row, change one; could you make sure that there isn’t a lot of repetition in phrases like this throughout the article, since this is the 2nd time I’ve noticed something like this?

I replaced this sentence with how it was written at Annie Knight.

• "after being edited to feature the logo of online casino Stake.com and posted by an account claiming to be affiliated with the company" — This is very janky, try to reword to be more clear

I moved the Stake mention to the start of the sentence.

• Link "balaclava"

Added.

• "Her final co-star began by thanking the cameraman and crew and singing "You've Got a Friend in Me" from Toy Story" — Why is this relevant?

Cut.

• "posting content to subscription-based OnlyFans alternative Fansly" — Add "the" after "to"

Added.

• "featuring footage of Blue having sex and for not adequately challenging Blue" — Consider "both for featuring footage of Blue having sex and for not adequately challenging her"

I think it's clear enough that there are only two.

• Try to trim down the often-repeated words like "subsequently" and "state"

Removed 'subsequently' entirely, and trimmed 'state' so that it does not appear in any adjacent paragraph.

• Some of the stuff in Life and career feels like it could be moved here, and vice versa. I don’t understand why there are two sections that both feature information about her life, maybe try to split up the sections a bit more since being between two seems to be causing most of the confusion

I selectively merged some of this into the main section. The rest seems suitable for a Personal life section, what else do you suggest here?

• "In February 2025, Blue denied that she was pregnant following speculation caused by her posting on Instagram a picture of noodles, pickles, and chocolate sauce next to the word "#cravings" followed by a series of photos of herself with the caption "It's giving milf vibes"." — Change one of the uses of "follow"

Reworded.

• "badly photoshopped" isn’t professional language

Trimmed "badly". I'm disinclined to change 'photoshopped' to 'edited' in case it really was done with Photoshop.

• "attention being elsewhere" — I’m a little confused by what this means?

The source says "Yet she rarely orgasms in her films “because I need to concentrate, and there’s too much going on. Making sure my hands are both moving, my mouth is busy, the next guy is coming in …”". Changed to "attention being on other aspects of filming". What else do I need to do @Crystal Drawers:?--Launchballer 14:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the previously reviewed version from the failed GAN in August, I noticed there was an Awards and nominations section, why was this removed? I also notice that that version has the material split up more, while the first section here is long and a bit hard to navigate. Could you fix these two issues? In the meantime, I’ll do a source review when I get back from work in a few hours Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 14:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The August version featured (among other things) numerous violations of MOS:PARA. I removed the Awards section because it was sourced entirely to XBIZ, which is yellow on WP:RSP and (in my opinion) doesn't quite cut the mustard for what I intend on billing at FAC as the 21st century's most controversial woman. I quite purposefully removed the excessive section headers per MOS:OVERSECTION.--Launchballer 15:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the source review a little earlier than expected. Ping me when you’re done so I can go through the article one more time and most likely pass it Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 15:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the source review came back okay, but I have some concerns

1. For "and promoted the events with a sign her mother had made saying "Bonk me and let me film it"", the third source seems to support this well enough, why is source 11 used (it only shows the sign)

That is an artefact from when I thought her Cancún trip was a different one to the one they actually meant. Cut.

2. A lot of the sources are paywalled, add archive links for them

I'll address these later. Archive.today was recently deprecated, so this could be fun. I'll offer a preliminary comment for point 3 that WP:CLUMP advises no more than three per section, and (as far as I'm aware) this is compliant with that.

3. Every sentence has a bunch of sources, which makes it a bit hard to read when there’s a source attached to so many words, can you ensure that there aren’t some sentences that could be sourced to just one (or even two, in the more notable cases) source?

Went through the multirefs; replaced/trimmed a couple that didn't seem useful, the rest are either contentious or genuinely need them (for example, "including 122 students at spring break in Cancún in March 2024 and 150 students at freshers' week in Derby and Nottingham in September 2024.[1][2][3]" - The Times has the number of students but neither date and the other two have one date each).

4. Link the websites in the sources and ensure all names are added, this is especially important if you plan on taking the article to FAC

Added. @Crystal Drawers: Wayback is giving me a 503 error, though I'm reasonably certain archiving isn't part of the GA criteria (but obviously I will still do this). What else needs doing?--Launchballer 14:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the sourcing is just a precaution that I’m recommending, it’s mainly the paywalled sources that I’d advise to archive, but this is obviously not needed for a GAN so, with the current changes, I’m happy to Pass. Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 14:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make this a featured article. Thanks, Launchballer 23:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this person apart from reading a newspaper article some time ago. I will make a few suggestions about the page's content.

Life and Career

• "took part in the British street dance championships with her sister in 2015" - as there doesn't seem to be an article on this specific event I would suggest linking street dance

Linked.

• "five years working as a finance recruiter for the National Health Service (NHS)" I looked up this job and it didn't seem very health related. Could it be linked? Presumably she was working for National Health Service (England).

Changed link and reworded.

• "before marrying her partner at a registry office in February 2022" - I would add a link to Register office (United Kingdom).

Linked.

• "became an escort" - I would suggest linking Call girl given it is a bit of euphemism

Linked.

• "After being branded a predator by a tabloid" - I would suggest giving the name of the tabloid if it is available. Was the concern that she was promoting pornography to young people?

According to the source, "She’d heard about Schoolies, a celebration at the end of Australian high-school exams, and went there to distribute business cards with a QR code to her OnlyFans page. She claims she was only musing whether to sleep with the boys when the Daily Mail ran a story calling her a sexual predator. So she leant into the publicity and offered herself free to 18-year-olds who would consent to be filmed, and then posted their brief encounters online."

• "she began recruiting men over the age of 18 to have sex with" - This feels like it should be a separate sentence.

Rearranged.

• "including 122 students at spring break in Cancún in March 2024 and 150 students at freshers' week in Derby and Nottingham in September 2024" - Had she immigrated back to the UK by this point?

The only source I could find to that effect said that Blue spent two years in Australia. In other words, probably, but the sources don't make it explicit.

• "to request censorship of the advert for using sex to promote gambling to young people." Make clear if the video was linked to the company?

I already did, I say "after being posted by an account claiming to be affiliated with the company" earlier in the sentence.

I would suggest explicitly stating if the claim was correct or incorrect.--Llewee (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I could was find was 'not posted by an official Stake account', so added that.

• "Blue's co-stars filmed in groups," I think "were" should be added before filmed.

Both seem fine to me, but changed anyway.

• "recruitment of multiple young-looking female content creators for a sex education lesson" - I think this could do with more context.

I think I've added what you meant, please advise.

So I take it that it was a pornographic film based on a fictional sex education lesson? I would suggest stating that explicitly.--Llewee (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was, according to The Guardian, "footage of (Blue) in a classroom preparing to film an orgy with a group of models dressed in school uniform". I've added that.

• "she and at least 17 other men" - I would take out "other" as she obviously wasn't a man.

Wow, that's a BLP violation and a half. Cut.

• "outside that city's embassy of Indonesia" slightly odd wording as London isn't a country, I would suggest suggest saying either the Indonesian embassy in London or the Indonesian embassy in the United Kingdom.

Changed to the latter.

• "In February 2026, she claimed to have had unprotected sex with about 400 men in one day[51] and to be pregnant,[52] following which a Twitter account parodying The Maury Show went viral after asking to not be tagged.[53]" - The link isn't explained here. Llewee (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added. I'm never quite sure which are the appropriate dashes to use - please advise.

It is not clear what the link is between the show and her claims about being pregnant or sleeping with 400 men. Had the show reported on the claims?--Llewee (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, fans were tagging the account, prompting it to ask that they not. I've expanded this to make it clearer.

I believe I've addressed the above.--Launchballer 21:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life and artistry

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by artistry here. Are you referring to the way she performs when working?

Essentially things like inspiration and style. I've reordered some of the sentences so it goes personal life and then artistry.

General comments

• I think the article would benefit from a separate section discussing the debates around her career. You mention a lot of opinion pieces which have been written about her but could probably discuss there arguments in more detail.

Opinion pieces are primary sources; the ones that are in the article are the ones that have turned up in secondary sources.

The main point is that I think a separate section discussing the debates around her career in more detail would be helpful.--Llewee (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to split this several times, and every time I do so I find myself starting a paragraph with 'Following her world record attempt', at which point I find myself thinking 'it's best to discuss it all in one sitting'. Is there an example of what you're talking about?--Launchballer 20:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it might be sensible to break her pre-sex work life and career into a separate section.

That would leave a very short section for Early life, which would violate MOS:OVERSECTION.

• It's good for FA's to use academic sources as much as possible. However, I couldn't find any about this person on the Wikipedia library. It's plausible that few exist yet given her fame is so recent--Llewee (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Since you are working towards your first successful FAC, I recommend getting a mentor who can comment in this PR. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC now to build goodwill amongst the FAC reviewers and to showcase your understanding of the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]