Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Britney Spears/archive1

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Britney Spears

[edit]

Self-nomination. Britney Spears has been the most searched names on the internet for several years. She is a cultural icon and gained much attention from the media. The article itself seems to fit FA criteria. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this does read to a degree like one of those nominations made without regards to how the article itself looks, this one doesn't look too bad from a brief glance. Not sure about article stability though. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose With how often she's been in the news recently, I'm not convinced this article is in a stable state as required by the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stable criteria says "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day. - Even though she is in the news a lot, as long as there is no "significant changes" to the article all the time, it meets the criteria. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest re-write. The article is a bit hard to read. The intro is so long but is it all needed. Maybe breaking it off into paragraphs. Some of the music commentary is so geared to the fan that is (probably incorrectly) seems like fluff to me. How about an education section? Did she receive music lessons from a famous person? Home schooled? A better name for the personal struggles section? I know this is an unusual request, but how about the discography list first then a description so that I know which albums came first? Finally, a news comment. Are all these news details fitting in a biography? Look at Mozart and there are not monthly details of his life, whether or not he was wearing underwear, whether or not we could see his genitalia, etc. Is that notable, that she exposed her private parts for the world to see (yuk!). True, you put a lot of work into it but I'm not sure it's ready for FA yet Mrs.EasterBunny 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, biography may state "(famous actor) Joe Smith was divorced on -- --, 2007 and was not granted custody". That will stand the test of time. Going into all the lurid details is very interesting but may not stand the test of time. That's the difficulty with fast changing events associated with a person. I commented on another FA a while ago that had the same problem. Nothing wrong with the person, just the fast changing nature of the life history and how much of it is really time honored biography. I just looked up a dead singer, Laura Branigan. On first glance (not a detailed analysis), her article seems to stand the test of time yet still informative. Come to think of it, her article is not even a GA. Maybe I'll work on it to make it FA? Mrs.EasterBunny 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The "lurid details" are simplified down to the most important information. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that things like education and other stuff you mentioned should find a place in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a SUMMARY of the article. If the lead would go on becoming lenghty, then it will give a perfect messy look. Have a look at Gwen Stefani. The lead does not mention about her education. Yet it gives a proper taste of the article. Indianescence 12:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What Mrs.EasterBunny has written is entirely correct. The writing in this article is not up to featured article quality. The lead is a choppy mess. The article continues in the same fashion. Examples:
    • "Britney Spears was born in McComb, Mississippi, but was raised in Kentwood, Louisiana, having moved to the latter at such a young age that it is often erroneously reported as her place of birth."
 Done Fixed. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It peaked at number one on the Billboard's Hot 100 and has earned nine million sales worldwide.[2][25] and was ranked 25th on Rolling Stone and MTV's "100 Greatest Pop Songs of all time".[26]"
    • "Reviews of the performance were unfavorable; BBC's David Willis stated that "her performance would go down in the history books as being one of the worst to grace the MTV Awards,"[74] and Times Online noted that "Spears was out of synch as she lip-synched and at times just stopped singing altogether."
    • "Their marriage was officially over in July 30, with Spears's attorney stating "They are divorced. Everything is finalized."[123]"

The citations in this article are a mess also. I went through the first 20 and a number of them are to "editors from...", broken links, or improperly formatted. See 1 2 3 4 7 10 11 12 13 14 16 20. I don't see any stability concerns besides vandalism, but this article still requires a lot of work. KnightLago 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Citations fixed. I have just clicked on all the links and they all work for me. I can't really do anything about the "editors from" problem. Some sites do not tell us exactly who wrote the information. Even the websites from the highly respected RIAA do not post the actual name of the author. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Sorry, not done. 10 11 13 still don't work. And I have only looked through the first 20. I am sure if I continue with the rest I could find more problems. You need to go through all the sources one by one and make sure they work. Also, If there is no author name you should leave that field blank, not add editors or whatever.

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it fulfills #1e Stable. The article is not currently in an ongoing edit war and that its content will not change significantly from day to day. It may change significantly weekly or monthly however. I see no problems in passing it as it is better than most articles on this sickening FAC page. Learnedo 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • " I see no problems in passing it as it is better than most articles on this sickening FAC page." "Sickening"? If that's how you feel about this page, and the work so many people put in to writing and reviewing here, it may cast your Support and Oppose declarations in a pointy light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obliviously I do feel this article is far better than most of the articles here, regardless of whether you like my opinion or not. I'm honest. This article is fine, and I therefore vote to pass it. Oh, and you never got back on the Al gore issue. I'll just assume there isn't any issues. Leranedo 07:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh before I forget. GOOD JOB editors of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support :The article ain't so higly unstable. Whatever problems it faces are rectified by a group of editors. The article is high on maintenence. So not a problem with that. The article does justice to Spears and does not look like a fan page. Indianescence 09:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support : Germany and Iran also appear daily on the news, that doesn't make the articles unstable. If you would check Britney Spears' history you would see that there is an army of editors watching the article and reversing the minor spamming and WP:NOT edits. Yamanbaiia 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a, 1c, 2. Text redundancies necessitate a copyedit (examples: Federline had very recently been in a relationship with actress Shar Jackson, who was eight months pregnant with his second child ... eight months pregnant defines how recent it was, very is redundant ... Just Two days before Sean's first birthday, Spears gave birth to her second son, ... ) The redundancy reducing exercises on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s page may be helpful. Other prose issues, for example, "Following the success of her debut album, Spears released the album Oops!... I Did It Again, which debuted ... " Debut followed by debuted, repeat. Prose needs to be audited throughout. Full dates (Month day, year and Month day) should be linked so user prefs will work. See MOS:CAPS#All caps on eliminating all caps, also in citations. Some citations are not fully formatted and are only blue links: see WP:CITE/ES. All citations need publisher, author and pub. date should be given when available, and last access date should be givin on websources. Many publishers aren't identified, so reliability of sources can't be evaluated. IMDb.com is not a reliable source for most information; all sources need review once you've identified all publishers. On the positive side, it's a relief to see that External links are not full of unreliable fan sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Citations fixed. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Double "debut" fixed. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Britney_Spears/archive1&oldid=1078786852"