Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson

Jenna Jameson

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 almost 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). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

Support (edit conflict) well-referenced and well-written article. CloudNine 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

• 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)
• Comment I find many sentences short and choppy.Rlevse 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)