Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Britney Spears/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Britney Spears

Britney Spears

edit
  • As this is one of the most consistantly searched for topics on the internet, it would be very beneficial for Wikipedia to get this article to a higher state of completion.

So what separates this article from Featured Article Status? Judgesurreal777 02:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both the controversy, career achievements and trivia sections are problematic, revelant parts of the collected facts should be added to the structure of the article where possible and these sections removed.--nixie 07:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things that should be fixed before going to WP:FAC:
    • The images all need fair use rationales (see WP:FUC), with the exception of the first image and Image:Curiosityperfume.jpg.
    • Years and decades without full dates generally should not be linked- see WP:CONTEXT.
    • Web references need WP:CITE (see WP:CITE/ES) information- {{Cite web}} may be useful here.
    • The remaining inline external links should be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs, along with the cite information.
    • "Controversy" should be converted to prose (paragraph form)
    • There a few instances of missing commas with dates: full dates should have two commas (ex. In December 2, 1993, rest of sentence). For consistency, following a year/decade, there should also be a comma (ex. In 1993, rest of sentence).
    • Spears was born in McComb, Mississippi and Commas are needed after states.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply put, see Mariah Carey and make this like that. Here, the TOC is huge. Sparse inline citations, and many of the ones that are there aren't high quality. Get more critical analysis of her work (look up reviews in Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, newspapers of large cities, etc.). "Personal" section is light on real substance, and so is "career achievments". --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some pictures have network logos in them and the logos should be cropped out or another picture should be found as this is copyright infrigment. -- Underneath-it-All 03:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it's a very messy article but I have a couple of things to add. Firstly, a cover picture of Rolling Stone in April 1999 is discussed, yet the cover is not pictured in the article. It is mainly structural and syntactical issues like this that which separate it from FA status - there are plenty of facts but they are poorly presented and organised. The See also list is also shockingly biased - essentially a list of lists which make Spears look good. I wonder if I should add List of people with the shortest marriages to balance it out! I'm unsure whether this is relevant to the FAC criteria but the article also has a very messy supporting article base, many needing serious cleanup. That's enough food for thought for now I think. BigBlueFish 21:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles like this are insanely hard. First, I'd suggest to do a lot of paragraph merging - keep them nice and long. Second, I'd suggest getting rid of the subsections of "personal" and merging everything to get more prose. Third, obviously fill in the citation needed tags. FACs with pop stars like this one are really difficult. RN 09:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Britney_Spears/archive1&oldid=1049877300"