Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Britney Spears/1

Britney Spears

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. It's not perfect but it's a GA per consensus below. Geometry guy 09:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article have a lot of "citation needed".

Looks like a write-fan-article and is not clear in all.

The principal autors put reference which says things totally different in the article to create a bulo.

Has a lot of lies. She is not a soprano, and i change that, so an autor undid my revision.

A good article has a good references. Have a good write (o prosa, cómo se diría en mi idioma). This article doesn't all of that.

Thanks. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is she not a soprano? Her range (I just checked it with a tuner) is almost exclusively within soprano range. Are you saying this because you believe she isn't really using her own voice in the first place? Levalley (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC) LeValley[reply]

Comments

First, please recheck the article thoroughly if it did fail to meet the Good Article criteria. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one "citation needed" in article, specifically in this line "Spears's parents would often argue, and they eventually divorced in 2002", in which case the first clause might be an original research and the second clause could be sourced. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was revised and perhaps you could also be clear in what instances it looks fancrufty. Please cite lines lines where ambiguity lies. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The principal autors put reference which says things totally different in the article to create a bulo." A singular case which can be removed anytime. Please do not generalize it. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Has a lot of lies" The same issue which can be addressed by opening a discussion at the talk page and not by edit summaries. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A good article has a good references. Have a good write (o prosa, cómo se diría en mi idioma). This article doesn't all of that." General comment. The article boasts 185 inline citations and an additional further reading. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize it all, Keep the article unless the nominator could prove it fails to meet the criteria. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination is poor on specifics. I do agree that the article needs a face lift, but it doesn't need delisting. — R ² 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make some suggestions we should ideally work through. Note, I do not believe the article needs delisting at this stage.

The lead is a little on the slim side for an article of this size.
The products and endorsements section should be integrated into chronological positions in article.
The filmography section needs cleaning up. Surely she can have an article created for this, with just a link to the article.
No need for Grammy Award grid at bottom.
2008-present section is too long, needs trimming, smell recentism.
Quite a lot of unformatted references.
Comment Its not a requirement but would be good if uniformly formatted. --Efe (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some observations. I'll try to do some myself. — R ² 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (full keep if improvments acutally done). Seems comprehensive and informative. Not perfect (agree about filmography needing reformatting, and grammies should be removed, but generally good enough to be Good. Diagree about products and endorsements, having the perfumes al togehter is better than spreading them throughout the article.Yob Mod 10:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets WP:WIAGA. I would keep the Grammy summary and keep the perfumes together.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]