I found this, and by the look of it, their full names are Brianna Monique and Stephanie Nicole. I'm not adding it to the article just in case. --James Duggan 06:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be reliable. Simon^KSK 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't an individual article be made about each of them? It would help--Falegas (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they would be exact duplicates of this article. They've never done anything separately, so why have separate articles? Nikki♥311 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But one likes Primo and the other The Miz--Falegas (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the Bellas having now brawled with each other and chosen separate allegiances (in storyline), we may want to revisit the separate article idea. EvWill (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still part of the same storyline...their articles would still be 99% the same. Nikki♥311 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bella Twins tag team no longer exists. The individual Nikki Bella and Brie Bella characters still do exist. I just don't agree that the Bella Twins entry should get priority. EvWill (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does say Brie was spit in the face, but is there any proof? To me it would make sense that Nikki got spit in the face and left Carlito and Primo and went to Miz and Morrison, instead of Brie getting spit in the face by Carlito and Primo and staying by their side. Josephjames21 (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing was televised on ECW. Brie was spit in the face, Nikki laughed at Brie, Brie shoved Nikki, Nikki attacked Brie, their fight was broken up, Nikki left with Miz/Morrison, Brie stayed with Carlito/Primo. That's how it played out whether it made any sense or not. EvWill (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Bella Twins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

• "World Cup" links to a disambiguation page.
  • I'm not that 100% sure what "World Cup" its supposed to be linked at. I'll let User:NiciVampireHeart decide on that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This sentence is kind of clumsy, and there's gotta be a better way to word it: "On February 13, 2009, on SmackDown, after flirting with the Bellas backstage, John Morrison and The Miz won a match..."
  • I've re-worded it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's now more context to the situation, which is nice, but the "flirted" part is still not grammatically right in that sentence. I think it would work in the next one, but by now I don't have a full grasp on the chronology of facts. Could you look into this one more time? Thanks. Jamie^☆S93 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reworded it once more. Hopefully it makes more sense now. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "After Neidhart was called up the main roster in April 2008..." — this didn't quite make sense. "Up to" the main roster? Off the roster?
  • I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, now makes sense. Jamie^☆S93 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Real name vs. ring name isn't consistent with Nattie Neidhart; in the first section she's referred to by her real name, and then in the SmackDown section, by her ring name "Natalya". Did she not have a ring name before SmackDown? If so, this should be briefly explained, or just her real name somehow introduced again: ("Nattie Neidhart, under the ring name of Natalya, ...").
  • You see, Nattie Neidhart used the ringname "Nattie Neidhart" during her time with Florida Championship Wrestling. When she went to WWE, she uses the name "Natalya". Hopefully, this clarifies it, or not. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The clarification does answer my question, and it's not a big deal now. Still, I'd prefer if this were explained in the context, 'cause otherwise it's not quite clear. Jamie^☆S93 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified in the article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It might just be me, but why is the one entrance song is listed in bold? I'm sure there's a reason (perhaps it their majorly-used song, because it was in their WWE career), but that's wasn't obvious. Also, same goes for "Sitout facebuster" in bold. Just need some clarification there, and perhaps de-bold the song title.
  • The reason the song is bolded is because that is their current theme. Also, if I can suggest to you the pro wrestling Style guide. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I figured it was probably WP:PW norms. :) I think this was just an "explanation needed" point. I read this article from a totally outsiders perspective, and with this review I assumed that a couple of points I raised would probably just be explained away. Jamie^☆S93 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Little quibble; could you link "Fox"? Perhaps pipe to Fox Broadcasting Company or Fox Reality Channel, whichever is more accurate.
  • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   It looks like an anonymous editor just added "The girls have recently reunited." This needs to be referenced, with some basic how/when surrounding information about this event. (Also, the infobox "disbanded" date needs to be updated if this is true, as well as the end of the lead). Otherwise, the article is fine with referencing.

   I removed the whole "The girls reunited" thing, cause I haven't seen them back together [as a team]. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The infobox image could use some sort of caption: i.e., when/where was it taken? And identifying the sisters would be good, but it's not exactly necessary because they are twins.

   The problem is that we can't tell them apart. But, I added a caption, hopefully it works. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fine, that looks great now. Distinguishing the twins is optional. Jamie^☆S93 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   You linked and explained the wrestling jargon and abbreviations, just something I noticed, which is a plus for certain topics which can be a tad confusing to outsiders - even myself, who knows nothing about wrestling, understood it! ;) Overall, this is a nice work, and close to being a good article. It does have several issues that are non-substantial, so I'm putting it on hold. Best, Jamie^☆S93 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Well, we have to be specific when it comes to wrestling terms to those who are unfamiliar with the subject. :) I believe I've addressed all your concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, and thanks for promptly addressing the issues. There's still those couple of minor points that I'd like to get fixed (which might involve Nici's view), but the article is certainly close. Jamie^☆S93 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok, I think I've finished the remaining problems. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at all the changes, and everything looks good now. Congratulations, I'm passing this as a GA! You guys did good work. Best, Jamie^☆S93 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Really appreciated! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]