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 articles
Per the question above, I would very much like people's input as to what we can do to get this article to Featured Article status (or damn well close to it). So if you have any suggestions, please feel free to fire away. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update: I'm starting a rewrite of the article on my username space. I will post a link when it is ready. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feature Article checklist
I would like to get a straw poll going to see if people believe that this article is achieving the following criteria laid out at Wikipedia:What is a featured article? Therefore, after each question, please vote yes or no with supporting reasons as to why you've voted yes or no.
No. While the article is decently written, the flow of the article needs a lot of work. The more recent additions, spanning from earlier this year to now, were added to the article without regard to how the entire article would be affected. (Imagine a stone garden, where each rock thrown into it ripples out and affects the other stones in the garden. It's the same effect that I see here.) Also, there seems to be a slight POV problem, which starts off from the lead paragraph that should be corrected immediately. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article comprehensive?
Yes. The artice is reasonably comprehensive, covering her early life to present events. This is no doubt thanks to her autobiography, which most porn stars do not have. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is some attempt at adding external links to sources and footnotes, but both are inconsistent and we do need to stick to one format. I would definitely recommend footnotes. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article have a neutral, encyclopedic tone?
Yes. For the most part, however there's a slight issue of tone which slams into the reader's face in the lead paragraph, particularly "she is one of the most famous female porn stars in the world". While Jenna Jameson is a popular star, some of the things said here seem to be near glowing. Compared to Mariah Carey (a Featured Article), it is said no where that she is "one of the most famous female singers in the world". The closest claim that we could probably latch upon that is this grandiose is "according to the Billboard magazine she [Carey] was the most successful artist of the 1990s in the United States". However, we have a notable magazine saying thus, and the wording in this is quite neutral. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article have a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic?
No. It points out that she is a pornographic actress. Doesn't give us any other specifics other than that and a vague number of being "in over 100 porn related videos" in her career. It says nothing about her other accomplishments, such as building her own business a la Danni Ashe. That's about it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article have a proper system of sections/headings and a substantial, but not overwheming, table of contents?
Yes. There is a logical progression to the article. It would have to be tweaked, depending on how the article is revised, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article have images where appropriate with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status?
Yes to the captions. No to the pictures. We could stand to get a higher quality picture of her "cameo" appearance in Family Guy, since it is a screengrab from a FOX airing. The fair use image of her at the AVN Awards has no fair use rationale and probably will be removed, since we have a Creative Commons image of her in the infobox. The box cover depicted in the filmography section is also unnecessary, as we are not giving commentary to the film itself. To compare to another featured article on actress Uma Thurman, one will not see a boxcover to Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction, given that there is no reason for the box cover for The New Devil in Miss Jones. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article tightly focused on the subject without going into unnecessary, unencyclopedic detail?
No. While focus is definitely present, the main thing holding it back is the "trivia" section. It needs to be removed to tighten the article, and the "trivia" itself either needs to be written into the prose, or removed entirely, as some of it is non-encyclopedic. For example: "She [Jenna Jameson] is a Roman Catholic, and despite the flak she gets, she says the only person that can judge her is God" sounds quite fanboyish and strikes me as something that needs to be eviscerated with zeal. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]