Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2014

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept status

edit

Removed status

edit

Jenna Jameson

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria at 14:59, 3 May 2014 [1]


Notified: AnonEMouse, Dismas, Tabercil, WikiProject Pornography

Review commentary

edit

Nominating since this article has many issues. Was nominated in 2007 and has since degraded quite a bit. Some issues were brought up when it was suggested that this article be featured on the Main Page. I've listed several of these issues on the talk page of the article as well. I've fixed a few. However even with these small fixes, the article is still in poor shape.

I even found some information that was incredibly out of date. It listed her as having hosted a show "since 2005" with no indication that the show ended. According to imdb the show ended in 2006. See here I haven't even really read much of the article, just little bits and pieces. Each little I read has issues and requires rewriting, new sources, etc. Needs a lot of re-writing. As it stands I don't think it passes the standards of FA. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the TFAR discussion mentioned above can now be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jenna Jameson. BencherliteTalk 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very poorly written, miles away from meeting criterion 1a. Eric Corbett 21:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since your comment lacks specificity, I'm not sure what you are seeing (or not seeing) to say that its poorly written. This article has already been a featured article, so its in need of revision and updating. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few examples of some of the problems I see:
  • "Jameson and Grdina formed ClubJenna as an Internet pornography company in 2000 ... Early Club Jenna films starred Jameson herself".
The problem being ... the space between "Club" and "Jenna"? Fixed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2005, Jameson directed her first film, The Provocateur, released as Jenna's Provocateur in September 2006. The films were distributed and marketed by Vivid Entertainment ...". What films? Only one has been mentioned.
Only if you don't read the prevHious sentence in the paragraph. But, rephrased. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adult-entertainment venues" but "adult entertainment industry stars"?
Picked one. It was very hard. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously too hard for you though, as you picked the wrong one. Eric Corbett 12:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On June 22, 2006, Playboy announced that it had bought ClubJenna Inc. Playboy is a magazine, it can't buy anything.
Actually its a business entity, so yes it can. It even has 1st Amendment rights. For the statement to be correct, it should read Playboy Enterprises
But it doesn't say Playboy Enterprises, does it. Eric Corbett 22:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop being lazy and FIX it, obviously you can type and you've identified the issue. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who bought ClubJenna, and nor do I much care. If you know, then you fix it. And please don't ever call me "lazy" again; apart from being incorrect it's a clear personal attack that I will tolerate no more of. Eric Corbett 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, happy to refrain from snarky comments if you are willing to do the same... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any any snarky comments, but if and when I do you'll be left in no doubt. Eric Corbett 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Jameson has stated in the past that she is bisexual ...". How could she have stated that in the future?
Specified. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... whom she met in a visit to Costa Rica". Should be "on a visit".
Thanks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... though as of April 29, 2010, the investigation by the police department remains open". It's now 2014. Is it still open?
Made "ed" - though might delete altogether. That's the problem with writing about living people, when I was writing, that was her current relationship, so clearly important. Now it seems like just one of several. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fundamental problem with this article though, which you will not be able to fix easily, is that it's written in the "In XXX she did this ... in YYY she did that ... in ZZZ she did the other" style. There's just no coherent narrative.
Eric Corbett 21:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list of specific items would be helpful, just make sure not to delete any references when making edits. My understanding of this process is that its an opportunity to fix an article, not to delist it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opportunity to do both; bear in mind it's not peer review, nor a hospital for sick articles. Eric Corbett 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean by either phrase? I'm not a porn star, are you? I was referring to the guidelines for the review process. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you can't expect those commenting to provide you with a comprehensive list of everything that's wrong with the article, nor expect it to remain here for however long it takes for all the problems to be solved. You have to read the article critically yourself, taking into account the examples provided here. Eric Corbett 22:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not hear to help with improving the article, then why participate at all? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given you several examples of where this article needs work, and in what way it needs to be rewritten, and I now look forward to the opportunity to vote for it to be delisted. Eric Corbett 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I commented on your list, so thank you implicitly. Its clearly a well sourced article that's being watched by 340 users and has had over 2,500 unique editors, it will get the attention it needs. Your comments have helped that process, so thank you again... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to meet you Harizotoh (may I call you Hari?), hi again Eric (at least I think we've met, if you are the person once known as Malleus? Foolhammer was a great name), and very, very nice to meet you Scal! Thank you all for commenting. I think I was the main mouse who got Jenna Jameson to FA. I haven't been very active in the years since Jenna Jameson, but still see it as one of the main ways I've helped the Wikipedia, and would be grateful for the opportunity to fix all issues. As far as I understand, though, WP:FAR is, in fact, for fixing the issues wrong with the article. It's my first time here, but it does seem to say: "The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status." So while we (I'm speaking in the plural now, not as a crowned head of Europe, but hoping that those wishing the article to remain featured feel likewise) can't "expect it to remain here for however long it takes for all the problems to be solved", we absolutely can "expect those commenting to provide us with a comprehensive list of everything that's wrong with the article"; and not only that, but to suggest remedies for that list. The list you have provided is excellent, thank you, and it and any other specific issues brought up will be addressed over the next few days. Thank you for helping to improve the only WP:FA that, according to the FA master, will never be on the main page! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To start with the specific issues and proposed remedies, though, Eric, could you specify what exactly is wrong with the "In XXX she did this" style that seems to irk you so, and after that, do propose a remedy? It seems like a straight forward and concise way of conveying the information, and was not a problem at the time of the initial nomination. If there is something specific that it lacks, we will endeavour to fix that to our utmost; but if it's just a matter of "I don't like it", then, unfortunately, personal tastes do vary (as Hannibal Lector may not have said, but should have). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you of what FA criterion 1a says: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. Are you really trying to persuade that you feel that criterion is met by the "In XXX she did this ... In YYY she did that ..." style of presentation? If so, you're wasting your time. The remedy is clear; you need to rewrite the text in a more engaging style. Eric Corbett 14:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unbounded gratitude for the elucidation. Please forgive a poor, near illiterate mouse. As my own style is found hapless and wanting, prithee, wouldst you be so good as to give three exemplars of biography of a living person with styles that you do find satisfactory, that I could feebly ape? That would be most kind, as at the time I was nominating I neglected to ask your personal opinion, and I must now remedy that lack anon if not forthwith. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that when you made the original nomination back in 2007 at least three reviewers commented on the poor prose, and opposed on that basis, but they were ignored. Whether the subject of the biography is living or dead matters not one whit to the way the article is written, but take a look at Kylie Minogue for instance, or Martha Layne Collins. All that's different about BLPs is that you have to keep them up to date, and that hasn't been happening in this case, hence the article also fails FA criterion 1b, as well as 1a and 2c. Eric Corbett 15:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone needs to take a close look at the referencing in this article, which is all over the shop, and on its own would preclude this article from being featured:
  • What does a date "2013-111-11" mean? Or "2013-11-101"?
Date formats unified to Month Day, Year. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When did Amazon become a publisher?
They've been a publisher for several years. It started with providing a means to publish ebooks and has grown from there. With their acquisition of IMDb several years, they seem to be into a little of everything. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you two keep trying to spoof me? Take a look at ref #74 for instance. That wasn't published by Amazon, it was published by München Heyne. Eric Corbett 16:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great catch, you're making this overall much easier with all of these specific items you're pointing out...! Keep up the great work. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you need to be doing this kind of check yourself, not trying to coerce me or anyone else into doing it. Eric Corbett 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coercion? LOL, we're having a conversation. If you feel you are being coerced, its entirely your creation... :) But I do thank you for your efforts, its been most helpful. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider your "Then stop being lazy and FIX it, obviously you can type and you've identified the issue", and "If you're not hear to help with improving the article, then why participate at all?" to be coercion, or at the very least an attempt to minimise my contributions to this review. Let me tell you now that it just won't wash, and as things stand this article will be delisted. Eric Corbett 04:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you think I have such control over your thoughts and actions, but again it's entirely your creation. As for the article, if you think threatening the article status has any meaning or significance to me, you're woefully mistaken. Again, thank you for your efforts. You've single-handedly contributed more towards its improvement than anyone other editor recently and that is appreciated. Maybe you can focus on the site instead of your perceptions of the editors. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand why you believe your strategy of attempting to belittle or insult reviewers is likely to lead to anything other than this article's delisting. Eric Corbett 12:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, that's perhaps the funniest thing you've said throughout this discussion... :) And thank you for revealing your true intentions and recording it in the Page history. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's something I find even funnier. You've made a grand total of two edits to this article, both of them since this review started. So you've not exactly been buckling down to help sort it out, have you. Eric Corbett 13:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That comment smelled an aweful lot like "snark" Eric... :) And yes, out of the hundreds of edits I've made on porn star articles, I've only made two here recently. I know I've edited in the past otherwise it wouldn't be on my watch list. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little misleading; you've only made two edits ever. Eric Corbett 17:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming I've only made edits logged in, I have the bad habit of editing as an IP user on a variety of computers. I edit whenever and where ever the mood strikes me. But I do agree that I need to put more time in, I thought the section restructuring that I did was fairly considerable which will affect the overall development and editing of the article. In other words, its also about quality, not just quantity. :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone made a valiant effort to shoehorn the earlier book translation links into the cite book templates. Fixed now. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "|publisher=by Paul Farhi, Washington Post, January 31, 2006; Page C01" mean? So who's the publisher? Presumably not Paul Farhi?
Fixed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was just one example, there are lots of others that need to be fixed as well. Eric Corbett 13:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, that is in progress. I fixed several, not just the one, and truly will get to the rest, just wanted to note that the specific one you mentioned was done, and that the process has started. When I was writing the thing back in ... was it really 2007? I'm such an old mouse ... the cite templates were new, and I didn't like them, so I just wrote the ref tags "longhand", shall we say. Since then, other refs were added using the cite templates, and clearly someone tried to be helpful and tried to jam my longhand ref tags into the templates without parsing them apart first. So now to be consistent there are roughly a hundred to go through. (Unfortunately the high density of ref tags seems strictly required; as I wrote in the initial review, the subject is controversial by definition, involving sexuality, pornography, adultery, battery, murder, and even that most hideous thing - business!) So I am getting to all of them as fast as my paws can type, but I beg your indulgence for the time this takes, as I do have to also earn my daily cheese. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several citations are bare urls.

Eric Corbett 15:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All great observations and fixable, thank you again for your help in improving this article! :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AnonEMouse, I have not gone by any other names on Wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... OK...? I'm not sure where I could have implied that you did...? --a somewhat confused AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Squeamish Ossifrage:

This is a mess. I know there's already been some repair work put in here, but if this were at FAC instead of FAR, I'd urge the nominator to withdraw. I've got issues with criteria all over the board: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d. I know people clearly feel passionately about the article's status, but this just is not up to current FA standards. In no particular order:

  • Someone needs to determine if the article should discuss Club Jenna or ClubJenna, because both are in evidence.
They're that way in our sources as well. But, standardized on ClubJenna. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate links abound.
  • The basic prose structure is a mess, too.
    • Read the "Mainstream Appearances" section, which is a rapid-fire sequence of choppy little sentences about individual events, divided into choppy little paragraphs. Then tell me how those are arranged, because it's not chronological, and it's not by media type, and it's not by ... well, any discernible sorting rubric.
Put the controversial mainstream appearances into a subsection, and made the others chronological. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a larger scale, neither "Books" nor "Mainstream Appearances" are subheadings of "Career", but "Business ventures" are?
      • My reasoning was that her Career was specifically pornography, which generally doesn't include either of the former, while her business ventures were further into porn; however, clearly that is not obvious to you, or to the editor that moved those as you suggested. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sections have obviously been written over time; that's not bad in and of itself, but when "Relationships and health" makes a blanket statement that "[s]he was unable to conceive again, even with in vitro fertilization", only to announce the birth of twins three paragraphs later, it is clear that recent events did not trigger rewrites of previous prose, while conversely other sections haven't been kept up to date at all (she's probably not "considering" a role in Rock of Ages).
  • Perhaps more importantly, there are a number of one-off lines that may be concerning from a due weight/BLP perspective: the one-sentence coverage of a pending-as-of-2007 lawsuit, and pretty much everything about the wording of the two-sentence coverage of the would-be film adaptation of her autobiography are two of the worst of these. I'm strongly tempted to unilaterally cull both of these.
  • To top it off, sourcing needs to be better. I'm not convinced of the reliability of several sources, and the article more than once cites primary sources where secondary sources exist (on cursory glance, for example, the Virtually Jenna videogame, sourced to its own website, which at a minimum has an A.V. Club review.
    • Also, historical perspective gives us whole categories of sources that aren't represented at all. For example, there are at least two scholarly journal articles that discuss the societal effects of her transition from porn star to accepted mainstream figure[2][3]. I'm not sure to what degree these views are worth including, but the requirement of a comprehensive survey of literature suggests they should, at a minimum, be properly evaluated.
    • And actually, on further look, sourcing problems extend past the obvious. This article's sourcing will need a careful and thorough evaluation. For example, the Hoellwarth reference (currently ref #141) was sourced to Leatherneck. But that link, to this forum post is merely an unattributed copyright violation of the actual article from the Marine Corps Times (available via the Internet Archive). I went ahead and fixed this one, so that we weren't citing a copyvio as a source, but there's no assurances that it was unique. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's plausible that a herculean effort could bring this to modern FA standards in a span of time reasonable for the FAR/FARC process. But, honestly, I don't think it should. The article would very likely be better off with a careful and thorough resourcing, rewrite, and copyediting, followed by a return to FAC with all the ducks in a row. There is a lot of work to be done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Squeamish Ossifrage. Although there have been some improvements, the article would need a complete re-write for the most part to pass FA status. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the specific issues, Squeamish. The ones specified before your list have mostly been fixed (with a lot of help from my friends!) Give me a few days and I shall endeavour to fix these as well. Herculean? I prefer ...! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a month since most of the previous issues were first brought to light, but they mainly dealt with prose issues and only dealt with the citations in a very general way. I'd like to take a closer look at the problems with this artilce's links.

  • Ref 4 ("ETHS") is cited 14 times throughout the article. The problem is that virtually all of the information attributed to this link is actually from one of it's three subsequent pages (the page cited is just a summary introduction page, the next two are the timeline that much on the information is taken from, and the last is her biography). This wouldn't be that big a deal, except that each page has a different copyright holder. The author in the inline citation is cited as the copyright holder on the bottom of the cited page (Jean-Paul Aussenard), but the next two pages (where the bulk of the information comes from) are copyrighted to "Robert Eric/Corbis Sygma" and "Gregg DeGuire/WireImage.com" with Jenna's bio being credited to " Michael Caulfield/WireImage.com". There is also no mention of the hosting website or the publishing year in the citation. Since the pages are each attributed to different authors, this needs to be split up and each of the four pages individually cited for each piece of information used from a particular page, with credit given to each individual author.
  • Ref 5 (CNBC2014) date still in MM-DD-YYYY format.
  • Ref 11 ("avnhof") supplies a Wayback link, but when you click it, the page does not exist.
  • Ref 23 ("Metacafe") cites a video that is no longer hosted on Metacafe (although the page still exists).
  • Ref 47 ("Toronto Sun 2013") has a typo in the "work" parameter.
  • Ref 50 is a naked link. The other problem with this reference is that it's a primary source (from Jameson's official twitter), which would probably be okay, except that the citation is used to back up the claim that "Jameson got extensively tattooed in early 2014 with sleeves covering both arms." The tweet does not indicate that the tattoo is new "In love with my me upper sleeve tattooed", nor does the picture included show both sleeves. At best, this could be used to support a claim that Jameson has a sleeve tattoo, but not that she has two sleeves or when they were obtained. This should be deleted and a new reference used entirely.
  • Ref 52 ("Wired") dead link (not tagged). No archive given.
  • Ref 54 ("Raw Nerve") dead link (tagged). No archive given.
  • Ref 55 ("Hoovers") does not contain a "work" parameter.
  • Ref 71 ("SportsIllustrated") contains a typo that causes "accessdate=" to appear in the citation.
  • Ref 87 ("NYTFilmography") dead link (tagged). No archive given.

I'm going to stop there. Those are just some issues I noticed in a casual once-over. I did not check every link (or any of the links after Ref 100) and my list should not be considered comprehensive. I also didn't check the content of each link. It's probable that they support the claims in the article, but as with Ref 4 and the twitter reference there may be more detailed problems within the references that require closer examination.

Also, a couple of non-citation issues that are still present (this is definitely not comprehensive):

  • The paragraph in the business ventures section about her bid to buy Penthouse magazine should be rearranged to reflect the events in the order that they happened. (Jenna's bid was reported on in 2003 by NYMag, she revealed in 2009 why it was unsuccessful, not the other way arround).
  • "as of April 29, 2010, the investigation by the police department remained open." Is it still open? If not, should be noted, if so should be "remains open," although I seriously doubt the investigation is not yet resolved.

To be frank, even if these technical issues were resolved, and even though the specific issues noted above me have (partially) been dealt with, the general quality of the prose is simply not up to FA standards. The prose is the biggest problem, and while it's easy to point out specific errors (as previous commenters have done), fixing them doesn't solve the real problem: the prose, as a whole, is not engaging. It feels sort of clunky in most parts. For example:

"Jameson writes in her autobiography that in October 1990, when she was 16 years old and 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 at Fromberg High School. The incident began after she attempted to hitchhike home, and that she entered the car of the four boys while believing that she would be driven to her home."

The second sentence is clunky and repetitive, and strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense. "The incident began after she attempted to hitchhike home, and that she entered the car..." Is there a phrase missing? Did she say that it began? Is the bolded word erroneous? Two clauses in the italicized sentence end with "home". This isn't an error, but it's too repetitive to feel engaging. She entered the car "while believing." It makes sense to say that she believed they would take her home. That's necessary information. But the "while" is extraneous, and very distracting.

This is just a break down of one example, but it exemplifies the type of problem the article is rife with. And since fixing the individual problems listed here and above doesn't solve the real systemic problems with the prose, and since the article is still full of this type of issue this far into the review process, I'm going to go ahead and cast a vote for "delist" below. Sorry AnonEMouse, I know you put in a lot of effort to fix this article up. --chrisFjordson (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Issues raised in the review section include prose, sourcing, and structure/coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/May_2014&oldid=613803480"