Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Jenna Jameson[edit]

My first FAC nomination, representing about six months of work improving an existing article. Great thanks to User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. who provided a checklist that kicked the process off, the article reviewers, who provided extensive comments, User:Rosenzweig and User:Tabercil who worked on the article itself, post-review, and finally the countless nameless vandalism-reverters (the article averaged several vandalisms almost every day) without whom this would never have been possible.

The article describes the current "world's most famous porn star"— no other way to put it. She has had a rather interesting life. The motivation was to write at least one article to set a standard for the encyclopedia's other porn star articles to aim for; we have a lot of them, they should at least try to be good. When I started work, I thought this could be very controversial, but considering that History of erotic depictions made it to the front page, this should be less so (though I still expect some controversy here, be polite, please).

I believe it meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is "well written" in the sense that many pairs of eyes have made style suggestions, most of which were implemented. It is "comprehensive", I guarantee more so than any other article about her on the Web (and there are many) and even more comprehensive than her autobiography, since it includes many events after that book's publishing, and business details it doesn't. It is "factually accurate", with over 100 mostly different references, many very high quality: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes ... and not leaning overly much directly on the autobiography (in fact, until late in the process it didn't reference it directly at all, until I was finally convinced that a few refs were necessary and wouldn't hurt). It is "neutral", presenting many controversies without bias. It is "stable", with no major ongoing edits except for grammar, phrasing, and such - with the obvious exception of the ongoing vandalism reverts. It has a summary lead section of the appropriate length covering all major topics in the rest of the article. It has a hierarchical system of headings and table of contents. It has a number of images, only in appropriate places, mostly free (thanks again, Tabercil), a few rigorously justified fair use. It is of appropriate length - 60 kilobytes total, but half of that is references and credits lists (the references are necessary since almost everything about her could be considered at least somewhat controversial, and she has won a lot of awards). Less than 32 kilobytes otherwise (no warning). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've been watching and giving comments for a while now, and this is a very well-done, meticulously sourced article. Certainly sets the standard for pornographic bios, if not the standard for any bio. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (edit conflict) well-referenced and well-written article. CloudNine 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support who knew that porn stars were people. It grosses me out, but it is a well-written and sourced article. Good work...I guess.--Eva bd 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you pls toss us a clue as to what became of the last FAC nomination, so it can be correctly archived and added to article history? Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the first FAC nomination. There wasn't a last one. What makes you think otherwise? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No wonder I couldn't find it :-) You referred to "your first FAC nom" (above); I misread. Sorry :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose fails 1a, per comments below, all references are not fully formatted, including last access dates (example:Jenna Jameson's American Sex Star Playboy TV reality sex show official page. ), and strangely, one section heading is used twice in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ouch. I spent 3 days going over the access dates, and see I missed a few. I think I got them all this time, but if I missed any more, please say. The section heading has been resolved by moving the filmography section to a separate article.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've also been following this article for quite a while now, and think it meets all the criteria. Trebor 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find many sentences short and choppy.Rlevse 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you be specific, please? I tried to vary sentence length, and others here have instead complained about run-on sentences. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is an embarrassment of an article. It is not of appropriate length; 60kb on a porn star is ridiculous, and 106 references is absurd beyond description. It is very poorly written, presenting quotes as if they are fact rather than summarising in the voice of the encyclopaedia. Her words express her own point of view, of course, and the author of this article adopts that point of view without question. The list of awards is not necessary; it just reinforces the impression that the author is a huge fan. "Notable pornographic work" - who decided these works are the notable ones? Many sentences are complete non sequiturs, such as her father didn't recognize her when she got off the plane.[12] He was then living in California, home of the American adult film industry.[3]. This really exemplifies the very worst of Wikipedia, and in my opinion it would bring the project into disrepute if an article like this got featured. Re-write totally, neutrally and at appropriate length and I would reconsider my vote. Worldtraveller 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You forget that that includes references in addition to the actual prose.--Rmky87 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially because I've been looking at this article for a while, and partly because of the worthlessness of that statement, I'm going to support this article. Can't wait till she gets to the main page...Phoenix2 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting because you disagreed with what I wrote? Interesting. Worldtraveller 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious, what do you feel is an appropriate length for a porn star? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe those are too small? I guess when I think of something being appropriate in length, I think in terms of available information, which there's no small amount here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Jameson really warrants 60kb, all these people would deserve at least 600kb. There are very few people who consider a 75kb article to be too small. See Wikipedia:Article size for guidelines on this. Worldtraveller 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but those people could have a lot of sub-articles, too. It's a fair criticism, I suppose, but there are ways around it if you're concerned about Jameson v. Jefferson. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we have a fundamentally different approach to writing an encyclopaedia. I just find everything about this article deeply embarrassing. Not just the size but what is done with it - the obvious bias, misuse of quotes, the dreadful writing. Anyone looking at Wikipedia, wondering whether to take it seriously as a reference work, and finding this article, is surely going to look elsewhere. Worldtraveller 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a problem with the writing and use of quotes, or feel that the article does not conform to NPOV, then by all means, share these concerns. If you feel that the article is too long and detailed, then say what in it should be take out, in your opinion. But if, as it appears, your main problem is that you feel the article is not "important" enough to be FA, or even in Wikipedia at all, then please go back and read WP:WIAFA again, as that concern is not in there. --PresN 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already did share my concerns. Please read what I wrote. Please also read very carefully the bit where I said that if certain things happened, I'd reconsider my vote. Please do not try and denigrate my vote by suggesting that I think things that I clearly don't. Worldtraveller 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Look at some of the other articles that are also tagged as FA: Xenu (about a mythological alien dictator), Fuck the Millennium (a song which didn't even reach the top ten of the charts!), Diary of a Camper, Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia (what? part of the constitution warrants FA status but not the entire constitution??). Whether an article deserves to be FA looks to me like it's independent of whether the article is "important". Tabercil 04:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, please read what I wrote. I said nothing at all about the subject inherently precluding the article being an FA. Worldtraveller 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the problem is that articles on more important subjects have yet to be improved, and not that this one ought to be shorter or less well-referenced just to maintain a sense of proportion? For better or worse, Wikipedia articles don't get improved in proportion to, or in the order of, their relative importance. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's definitely not the problem. Thatcher and Gandhi are featured articles. Worldtraveller 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and they both have dozens of sister and daughter articles. Gandhi has his own nav template. (Neither is that good at the moment, but that's beside the point.) So comparing raw sizes is a complete red herring, and while I might agree with you on broader points, I don't know what you're trying to get at here. Opabinia regalis 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here, are you saying the article should be less comprehensive and have fewer references? Because that, to me, seems absurd. It's 60kb including references, but that's not really relevant; the main body of text is under 5000 words which is fine. But even if you don't think it should be featured, saying it "exemplifies the very worst of Wikipedia" is just not true, and borderline incivil. Trebor 11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reread what you had said Worldtraveller, and apologize... I mistook what you had said. Let me paraphrase what you said just so we're all clear on what you mean:
  • With regards to article length that we've gone overboard and have gone into too much depth, and we ought to cut it back.
  • You're saying the full list of awards is not necessary in this article, correct? If we were to break it out into a separate article, much like List of Alison Krauss awards, and stub the mention in the main Jenna article, would that clear up this objection?
  • There seems to be a general consensus regarding the choppiness of the text, and I'm agreeing with you that the general sentence length is rather short. However, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Tabercil 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards section aside, there seems to be precedent for moving the filmography to a separate article as was done in the WP:FA articles on Vivien Leigh and Bette Davis. Did that. That will shorten the article a bit, but note that Wikipedia:article size specifically excludes tabular, list, and reference sections when measuring size, and for good reason. As I wrote in opening the FAC, the many references are quite necessary per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, note how potentially controversial almost every part of the article is: even besides pornography, we write about rape, homosexuality, false id use, drug addiction, flagrant adultery, and numerous public criticisms. Following the instructions on the bottom of WP:SIZE, I don't get a size warning, which I believe means it's less than 32K.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Someone however has put a citation tag pertaining Jenna's orientation, needs to be fixed. --Brand спойт 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. There's a cited statement within the body of the article for the bisexuality; I've applied that cite to the infobox. Tabercil 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ObjectSee below due to prose issues; there are many choppy-sounding sentences and the writing overall strikes me as sophomoric. For example (and please comb through the text for others):
    • "Jameson began to feel that Randall was "a shark", was taking advantage of her, and she stopped working for her." Italicized part, ugh.
    • "accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin,[1] and at times even her father." - marvelous misplaced modifier.
      • Modifier misplacement on heroin has been fixed. Tabercil 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Her acceptance into the general socio-economic field..." - what?
      • That's what the paper says. :-). Rephrased simpler.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ummm. That's not an 'academic paper', it's some college student's PDF'd word document. It doesn't appear that http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ is or hosts a peer-reviewed publication, and if that text has actually been published anywhere that claims academic qualifications, I'll eat not one but several hats. Opabinia regalis 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, I'd hate to ruin your diet! :-) It's not crucial to the article, so I'll take it out until something shows it important. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, thank you, my hats are safe ;) I'm willing to bet there has been a paper in cultural studies/media studies/whatever it's called now that does discuss Jameson, but I wouldn't know offhand where to look. Opabinia regalis 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She acts in a porn film directed by Brian Griffin (the dog) which wins an award." - misplaced modifier again. (end prose examples)
    • Grdina is repeatedly referred to as her husband, then we find out at the end that they're no longer together; try 'then-husband'.
      • Technically, the divorce isn't final, so they are currently married, but that's beside the point - as far as I understand, in a biographical article it is understood that we're always discussing a point in time. To give some specific FA examples, Bette Davis, uses "husband", rather than "then-husband" to refer to two distinct people, both of whom she later divorced, Vivien Leigh refers to "her husband, Laurence Olivier", though they divorced, etc. It seems to be practice to do that.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If they're still technically married, I suppose it's moot. In general (IMO) there should be some temporal indicator when he's introduced and especially in the image caption, which is likely to be read separately from the text. Just like you'd caption a photo of her at 22 'Jenna Jameson at 22' and not just 'Jenna Jameson', even if it's in the section where her early-twenties exploits are discussed. Opabinia regalis 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since she's best known for porn, is it appropriate that the 'mainstream appearances' section is longer than the 'pornographic film career' section?
    • What does make the selected films in the filmography notable?
      • Impact on her career, and awards... on further thought, moved to separate article, see above. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally agree with Worldtraveller on the use of quotes in the text (though not with the same force); there are several instances where Jameson's statements are written into the text as if they were statements of fact. A relatively benign example is that she "left after two months because the schedule was "brutal ... and the money was terrible".[15]" Why not "she left after two months, complaining of low pay and demanding work schedules"? (or some variant, depending on what the source actually says). There's a general overuse of cquote (to be fair, I hate this template and its goofy blue quotation marks).
      • Per WP:NPOV we are supposed to let the facts -- in this case her statements -- speak for themselves. If we write "complaining", we're injecting our opinion. But I can see that this line reads like we may be claiming her opinion is fact -- rephrased. I looked through the text, and couldn't find any other quotes that aren't clearly described to be her statements rather than facts. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, 'complaining' is just an example, as I don't know what the context of the statement was in the original source. Sorry, I don't have time tonight to read it again in detail, but the version I read originally had a couple of cases of rather trivial single sentences set off from the main text in cquotes. Opabinia regalis 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sigh. I admit, I like cquotes. But in the interests of getting your support, I changed two of the four, leaving two rather important quotes emphasized - the shorter one is possibly the most complete characterization that could be managed in that length. Good enough for a compromise? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lastly, there's some referencing weirdness; why are random ISBNs in the text? There should be no internal jumps, as in "(See Awards)". Opabinia regalis 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what the problem is here. The only ISBNs are for the autobiography, which is rather important, not random. The "see #Awards" is the equivalent of "see below" with a more useful link added. This isn't something I'll fight to the death over, and will get rid of either or all if you insist, but what is wrong with either of those? To me, they seem useful, and fairly standard usage. Is there any guideline regarding the use of either of these that I am missing and you are referring to? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Put reference information in the references section. Or 'notes', or a bibliography, or just about anywhere besides the middle of a paragraph. You can link internally, but - just as with wikilinks to other articles - the link should be integrated into the text, not dangling as a parenthetical. Opabinia regalis 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Internal link integrated. ISBNs I still like, but I promised not to contest too much, so removed as I can't see a separate section containing one book. They are in the separate book article, I guess. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to support. I can't see spending too much time on the quote thing, as it's essentially a stylistic matter. There are a few lingering prose issues (eg, 'first Club Jenna produced film' should have a hyphen, 'Early Club Jenna films starred Jameson herself, limiting herself...' is awkwardly phrased), but they're minor and hard to avoid in an article whose subject invites vandalism and edit creep. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I recognise that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it has improved greatly since I saw it at peer review, but the writing just isn't up to standard yet. There are a lot of very awkward run-on sentences that need to be rephrased. For example: "Jenna wrote in her autobiography, with graphic details, that in October 1990, while the family was living on a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was beaten with rocks and gang raped by four boys after a football game." There's also: "Stern also put her in his semi-autobiographical 1997 film Private Parts, where she played "Mandy", the "First Nude Woman on Radio", reflecting those appearances." These aren't isolated examples. On the whole the article has a lot of promise, but it's just not there yet. MLilburne 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased, hopefully fixed, both, others have also been fixed elsewhere, am looking for more. I apologise, but must ask for specific examples, as otherwise I might miss the phrasings you think are the most awkward. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

(necessary for editing, see: [1])

  • Oppose Fair use images do not contribute significantly to the article - book cover, dvd cover, screen cap, all debatable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are the only three fair use images in the article. The book cover relates directly to the section on the book, which discusses it in great detail and contributes significantly to the section. The DVD cover is related to the section next to it as the first release from her distribution company, and contributes significantly, allowing readers to discren the quality of the release. The screencap is arguably one of the most mainstream performances that she has offered, and is easily recognizable. I don't think I agree with any of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. The book cover I am afraid I will fight for to the death against all odds - the book is mentioned all over the article, it's crucial, indispensable, to Jameson's mainstream fame, and, when you come down to it, it's an autobiography, kind of important to a biography article by definition. The book isn't just important to the autobiography section, it gets noticeable text in the mainstream appearances section and the article header. Without the book she would not be the same person, and we would not be writing this article. I just can't see this article without it, no way. The DVD cover is not quite as important, but still important - it basically "put legs under" the ClubJenna company, not just by being their first movie, as Jeff writes, but by being the best selling genre movie of the year. In addition, it was Jameson's return to film after a many year absence. Finally, it's what she does, we need one, and it is as close as we can get to a demonstration of what she does for a living without being unnecessarily risque. So I really do think it is also important enough to keep. The screen capture - well, as Jeff writes, this seems an important one, she is playing herself, in an animation that wanted an iconic porn star, showing she was an icon. I guess I can be convinced otherwise if there is such a consensus, but I don't see it yet -- are there other opinions? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll agree with badlydrawnjeff and AnonEMouse on this count, for the book and DVD covers at the least. Both images are used in a fashion that just about perfectly matches the intent of WP:FU, and especially point 8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)" (emphasis in this case added by me). The book cover, as the Mouse says, illustrates the article segment about the book. The DVD cover illustrates specific text within the Business section, namely this snippet: "The first ClubJenna film, Briana Loves Jenna (2001),... was the best selling and best renting pornographic title of its year, winning twin AVN Awards." As well, the criteria which IMO most commonly causes fair use images to get deleted (#1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information") does not apply. Tabercil 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the text doesn't actually discuss either cover; it discusses the products. It's arguable that neither cover is a particularly notable or relevant part of the product. Opabinia regalis 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • While anything can be arguable, it has been generally decided that covers are quite relevant and notable to the product, and discussion of the product is sufficient, discussion of the cover is not necessary. Look at most cover usage within writer and actor Wikipedia:Featured articles - Isaac Asimov uses a cover of Foundation, J. R. R. Tolkien uses three book covers, Diane Keaton uses two movie posters, Douglas Adams uses two book covers and a video game cover, Anthony Michael Hall uses a DVD cover, Katie Holmes uses a film poster, many others... in all these cases, the discussion in the article is of the product, not the cover. These are all illustrative of specific points, not decorative. Also the DVD cover is specifically discussed, note the prominent comment about Jameson's return to film on it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at the other existing FA, we have the video game Shadow of the Colossus which has a soundtrack cover present within the article, but no discussion of the cover. In fact if I interpret your argumemt correctly, any use of a cover for a book or DVD, or even a promotional poster for a movie without a discussion of the cover (or poster) itself is using the image incorrectly and doesn't qualify for FA! So that means the feature articles Gremlins 2: The New Batch, Blade Runner, Dog Day Afternoon and more all fail. And horror of horrors, we have the album Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), which has the front cover, the back cover and even an alternate cover present within the article, but no discussion of any those covers within the article! Yes, I realize that my point is slightly inane, perhaps even farscical, but I feel that you've missed the intent of point 8 of WP:FU and this is the best way to show that. Tabercil 15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Featured Articles are about presenting the best content that a free (as in speech) encyclopedia can present. Such articles should avoid using unfree (as in speech and beer) content like the plague. These images are not imperitive to the article - they are, arguably, eye candy to break up the text. If such candy is needed, we should be seeking out free (as in speech) content. Contact the publicity agent and beg for GFDL releases on some images. Get some guys flikr cc-by-sa images in the article. Per mindspillage, the crackdown on fair-use is coming. DVD covers on articles about actors will be gone before you know it. Why not make this the best it can be? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's got more completely free images than almost all FAs, obtained just the way you recommend. That's actually one of the things we can be most proud of here. Commercial cover images have never been released, are not replaceable, and are not eye candy. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have to agree with AnonEMouse here. Even Jimbo has said that things like soundtrack covers are good fair use - any "crackdown' is unlikely to include those sorts of things, and their use in this article is more than okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very well referenced, mostly adequately written apart from confusingly switching between her surnames, slightly long, however, overall probably acceptable. Addhoc 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any suggestions on how to handle the switch? We're supposed to use last names to refer to article subjects. Her stage name is indubitably better known, but I can't see using it for her early life before she invented it. Mark Twain seems to do it the way this article does, using it after it was taken, John Wayne uses the stage name even earlier, but neither one is a Wikipedia: Featured article. Is there a guideline or FA model to follow? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as it happens Bob Dylan uses the same format. I think my confusion was partly due to the use of her first name, for when she was younger. From the discussion on my talk page, I appreciate your reasons for this. Addhoc 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existing way is probably the cleanest way to do it, and Dylan was the example I was going to use. Another FA that also has a birth name different than the eventual famous name is Vivian Leigh - she was born Vivian Hartley. How that article handles is to refer to Vivian by her full name (Vivian Hartley) up until she took her professional name of Vivian Leigh, then refers to her thereafter as by just her last name of Leigh. In my opinion, the way it's handled in the Vivian Leigh article is rather clunky in comparison to how its handles in the articles for Dylan and Jenna. Tabercil 18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, well-sourced, interesting, and, I suspect, the best article on the subject on the Web or, likely, anywhere else. Unlike articles on major subjects which become POV-battle-grounds, and are redundant to other sources when they don't, this one shows Wikipedia at its best. In a category so often criticized for having too many stubs, the "too long" complaint is somewhat puzzling. If she is indeed the "World's most famous porn star," then a long article is not out of order. If the Gandhi article is not lengthy enough, then improve that one so that it's as good as this one. Great job, AnonEMouse. Dekkappai 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No detailed fair use rationale provided for Image:Jameson j-howtomakelovelike.jpg. ShadowHalo 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; length is not an issue. The fact no-one has put in the effort to write longer articles for people with more historical or contemporary importance has absolutely no bearing on this article. What, have all wiki editors got to rewrite every other article before putting in effort to articles for less significant figures? The article had prose issues, but these are disappearing. I'm afraid subject matter doesn't dictate FA criteria for me, and this article passes on enough of those criteria for me to support. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems like a good article, a few minor concerns:
    • The article Briana Loves Jenna should be created, at least as a stub, red links in the lead don't look very good.
      • Hoist by my own petard! Stubbed.
    • Are all of these double and triple footnotes really necessary? For instance, "has been called the world's most famous porn star" has three footnote, Rolling Stone, Forbes and Wall Street Journal. Any one of them would be sufficient.
      • That's pretty strong puffery, without being cited as being from very reputable sources it would not be WP:NPOV - however, that is exactly how they refer to her. Other lines with multiple citations are similarly potentially controversial.
    • Why is Adult Star Path of Fame bold in the awards list? Is that something special?
      • No - yikes, even the link is bad! That addition was a recent "gift" from a new contributor. Removed bold, shortened, fixed link, and if anyone complains further can remove altogether. I don't like to outright remove well intentioned contributions, but also don't know that it's really an important award.
    • The mainstream appearances section is not chronological, it jumps from 2003 to 1999 and then back to 2001, what is the logic behind that exactly?
      • I tried to put the major controversies/debates (Abercrombie & Fitch, Oxford Union, Bill O'Reilly) together thematically, rather than just have that section be a chronological list. Since dates are given for each, I hoped it wouldn't be that confusing. Is it?
    • Using two different styles for quotes, Cquote and blockquote, is not good.
      • See above for the criticism that caused me to remove a few Cquotes. I do think it properly emphasizes important quotes, while the blockquote is for something interesting enough to be quoted, but hardly career-defining.
    • If it actually was her autobiography that marked her mainstream breakthrough, it should be made clear in the lead. Right now it reads like this was just another random career step.
      • Really? Most authors would give their right arm to have a book spend six weeks on The New York Times Best Seller list. It was the breakthrough in the sense that after it much of the mainstream treated her differently, but exactly how differently is hard to say in one sentence; details and before/after contrast takes half of the mainstream appearances section. Can you suggest something short enough for the header?
    • Why is there so much text, even full sentences (Preacher has denied this.), between brackets? Jaqu 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article if ever I saw one. The definitive guide to Ms. Jameson's life and œuvre. Very well done. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Fails criteria 1a and 4, specifically the prose is often awkward and the article is full of unnecessary detail. Nearly every section could be cut by at least half. After having defended two articles at WP:FAR lately I'm a little surprised there aren't more vocal opposes here. In all fairness, comments are supposed to be specific and actionable, so detailed list follows. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead paragraph, second sentence is awkward.
    • Parentheticals are nearly always just sloppy prose.
    • Early life - unnecessary details include where her mother danced, how much time her father spent working. Is the beating and rape a documented fact? The reference seems to quote her autobiography. Presenting this as fact seems dubious. Perhaps these both could be condensed to "In her autobiography, she says she was beaten and gang raped, and in a separate incident raped again, both when she was 16."
    • Early career - nearly all of this is sourced to quotes from Jenna (reported in a variety of publications). Presenting this as sourced "facts" in an encyclopedia seems kind of a stretch. I don't know what to do about this, but condensing it down to a paragraph or at most two would probably help.
    • Pornographic film career - Even though it has two references, I'd cut the first sentence completely (the references are no doubt two different interviews). Her signature move is oral sex, "lubricated with plenty of saliva" ... overcoming her addiction "by spending several weeks with her father and grandmother recovering on butter and focaccia bread" - aren't these sort of the definition of unnecessary detail? Yet, despite all this unnecessary (even lurid) detail, there isn't a count of how many movies she made between 1995 and 2001. "She was the first entertainer to have won" - perhaps "to win"?
    • Relationships - cut by half, unnecessary details include famous boyfriends, "scion of a wealthy cattle-ranching family", Roman Catholic-style ceremony, ring finger tattoo, where they lived, how much their house cost, gossip column level details about her current relationship.
    • Business - also cut by half.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson&oldid=1138464551"