Wikipedia:Peer review/Jenna Jameson/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Jenna Jameson

This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!

A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.

She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )

Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.

Thank you very much. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
    • There are many links, but I can't see any that are repeated within the same section, or don't add much to the article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
    • Checked all. Months only linked when with day of month, per WP:MOSDATE, no days of week in article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
    • Done, I think. All are a short sentence fragment. Short enough? AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 48 foot, use 48 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 48 foot.[1]
    • Only units I can see in infobox. Done there. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: color (A) (British: colour), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), aging (A) (British: ageing), kerb (B) (American: curb), program (A) (British: programme).
    • Can't find any British spellings in article.AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific question: lead image?

Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • For the pictures, I'd probably use the headshot to avoid the repetition. Trebor 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think the picture on the left is very representative, as she's usually blonde isn't she? --kingboyk 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Eh - leaving until there is more consensus one way or the other. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trebor

(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse, also moved picture comment up to that section.)

The article starts well and is well-cited

  • (although I question whether any sentence really needs 5 cites, 2 or maybe 3 would suffice even if the issue is controversial),
    • Reduced to no more than 3 everywhere.
  • but there's too many 1-2 sentence paragraphs.
  • I personally dislike direct external links within the article itself, e.g. to ClubThrust, and they aren't used on featured articles.
    • Moved to External links section.
  • The Mainstream Appearances section I'm unsure about. It's just a list of things she has been in, and "mainstream" is a fairly debatable term. It definitely shouldn't be kept in its current form - either transformed into prose with decent sized paragraphs (if you are able to group the appearances into sensible sections) or made into a list. A lot of it is then listed again in Mainstream Work which makes it redundant.
    • It's a list of "appearances outside pornography", which is generally considered difficult to achieve: Ginger Lynn, Traci Lords, R. Bolla, etc., spend a lot of effort on it. Will work on expanding, and sorting.
    • There. I stuck some of the items together in paragraphs by decade, expanded a few, and added a bit of an overarching theme for the section, of her trying to break into mainstream fame from solely pornography. Better? I know it's still a bit choppy, but don't really know how to improve it further without just throwing interesting information away. It wasn't even all mine, so I'd feel especially guilty throwing away others' contributions. Any specific help will be welcome. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Added an academic paper about her efforts to enter mainstream - it really is important. Also added even more, and a bit of contrast between "before the book" and "after the book", which made a bit of difference. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also for the filmography, "important" is a bit POV - who says it's important and why? Trebor 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The porn films are the ones unusually important to her career - first film, and award winners. I can put a line by each film saying so, but would that then be redundant with the Awards section?
      • Yeah, it'll probably be fine as it is. There's a part of me that wants to say "no, every assertion of importance must be sourced", vying with the less policy-obsessed part that thinks "well, it's pretty obvious which are most important and justifying each one is a waste of time". In this case, the latter probably wins. Trebor 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the article - it's looking much better. It should easily make Good Article and (I think) would have a shot at featured. Minor things that could be changed:

  • "Massoli was raped a second time" - is this just her alleging it and Preacher denying, or was there a conviction? If it's just two opposing views, then the current wording makes Massoli's seem correct.
  • "As of 13 April 2005, she and publisher ReganBooks were embroiled in a lawsuit" and then "As of this writing" - the information seems slightly sketchy and unclear. Do we know when the lawsuit was filed or just when it was first reported on? Are you sure no resolution has been reached, or has one just not been reported? Also, saying "as of 2005" makes the information seem very out-of-date; saying "as of this writing" would require the reader to search the history to see when it was written (give the date of writing if necessary at all). Trebor 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just not been reported, unfortunately. However, it's important enough that even a New York Times article about Regan's firing mentions it ... and again not how it ends. It's linked to. Fortunately Regan's firing puts a more definite date on the time as of which it hadn't been settled or at least reported. Mentioned that, also expanded on VH1 Confessions special. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the changes are fine and I can't see anything else to improve - it's a quality article. Trebor 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nicely done! These are my remarks:

  • "She was born ... ". When you start a new section, I recommend not to start with "she". I think it would be better "Jameson was born ... ".
    • Jameson is her stage name, she was born Massoli. Wrote that.
  • "Biography" needs more coherent writing. For instance, these stubby paragraphs are not nice. Merge or expand them.
  • I think that you could also add more sub-sections in "Biography", such as "Early life and family", "Early career" etc. This might also help you better organizing your material.
    • Done.
  • Before "Autobiography" there is an uncited paragraph.
    • Cited, expanded, moved down to Business (as it is a Club Jenna thing).
  • There is a paradox with "Autobiography": The section of this article is bigger that the main article about the book! The opposite is more usual! I'd suggest that you expand the main article and then see what you want to include of the main article here. You could also link to the main article straight after the heading like that:
For more details on this topic, see How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale.
    • That's because I didn't write the other article. :-). No excuse, I know. Expanded the other one, more work left.
      • Expanded both this section and the other article in different ways. There's still overlap, but I do want to mention the facts that the book is a compilation of different styles, that's interesting, and the fact that it's really personal, that's important. I hope it's passable now? AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Mainstream appearances" is poorly written. There are so many stubby paragraphs that it looks almost listy.
    • Right, Trebor said as much. Will work on.
  • I read in the article about her awards, here achievements ("best renting pornographic title") etc. (there is also a long listy, which I am not sure if it is absolutely necessary, but let's see what other reviewers will say about that), but if she really is a controversial person, then there must be somewhere some controversy! Some critics, opponents etc. criticizing her style, her work etc. I think this should be further analysed.--Yannismarou 17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I meant controversy in the sense of expecting clones of User:Brian G. Crawford showing up and demanding that all pornography articles be expunged from the Wikipedia, and their authors defenestrated. She's not particularly controversial among porn stars as such, she doesn't do anything particularly extreme, she's more revered or envied for her success. There's a bit where she criticised Suze Randall and Suze criticised back, I'll see if I can find that.

Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLilburne

So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.

In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...

There's an awkward use of passive voice, "later she would." The reader also wonders how much later. Then it sounds a bit repetitive when you continue with "She would later". There is another repetition when you have "in her autobiography" immediately followed by "in the book...".
Rephrased. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".

Way too many commas and clauses in a row. I don't have a specific suggestion, but you need to break up those sentences somehow, and vary their rhythm a little more.
Broke up. Better?

Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.

Also a bit of a run-on sentence.
Broke up.

While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.

Either you need to set the names of the drugs apart with something other than commas, or you need to start the list with "such as" or something similar.
Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.

Another one of these strings of commas and clauses.
Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

She has also avoided interracial intercourse.

This is not a stylistic point, but rather one of curiosity. Do we know why? It would be interesting to mention the reason, if so.
That's tough. Here's the thing - she's actually been called racist for this on several talk boards, but there isn't that much discussion in reliable sources. There is plenty of reliable writing about the fact she doesn't do other activities, but less for this particular one. I'm personally somewhat amused by the fact that someone can be called racist for restricting whom she has sex with, but that's beside the point.

Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] badlydrawnjeff

(copied here from User talk:AnonEMouse to keep in one place)

Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's basically what the other reviewers wrote. I'll add it to the review. However, I've noticed that it's a lot harder for me to actually put the reviewer comments into practice than it was for you - with Babb, I would write something, and you would do it, while with Jameson, it's taking many days for me to make better paragraphs out of the broken points. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Mainstream section redone a bit, see #Trebor's section, above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Business section down expanded, merged, reflowed. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent job on this. I think it's certainly GA quality, and could be FA quality with some prose fixes and cleanup at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - WP:GA would be an excellent start. I'll see if someone agrees. :-).
Somebody agreed! :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LuciferMorgan

  • Comment Some of the listy sections could do with conversion into prose. LuciferMorgan 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Awards" section could do with conversion from being a list into prose also, even though most articles fail to do so. If it did it'd make the article more fluent as a whole, as it could say "Jenna has won the blah blah award X times..." etc. I think it'd be more encyclopaedic that way. LuciferMorgan 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I looked as some Wikipedia:Featured articles for actors: Henry_Fonda#Awards has a very similar section for that. Angelina_Jolie#Filmography and Uma_Thurman#Filmography put awards in the lines of individual films, which I can't do, since many of JJs (best new starlet, hall of fame) are not film-specific. Of course they're tables, rather than lists - would that be better? All these articles also discuss many of the awards in the text, but then so does the Jenna Jameson article, if not quite to the same extent. I'll see if I can do that more, but, unfortunately, there is more critical commentary on a mainstream actors' performances of specific roles than in porn. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In some sections it reads "who would" etc. as though in future tense, which can become grating. It's up to you, but I'd personally suggest changing it to past tense consistently throughout. LuciferMorgan 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Got rid of all but one which I can't figure out how to avoid without losing the meaning. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)