Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Britney Spears/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 20:17, 8 March 2008.

Britney Spears

edit
previous FAC
Check external links

Nominator. I feel that this article meets all featured article criteria. Yes, the subject is in the news a fair bit, however, as a precedent, Barack Obama is in the news more, and his article was promoted to Featured. I believe this article is stable. This article has an elite group of people who maintain it. Vandalism on the article is low. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose there are several very questionable sources that seem highly inappropriate for a BLP: including at least one user YouTube video, several forum postings, and some sites which appear to be fansites and that do not meet the basic WP:RS criteria. I'd also question the use of so many TMZ references, considering its a tabloid and not the best of sources for making claims about a living person. Can't better references be found to validate those claims? Collectonian (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into finding more reliable sources and/or remove claims that a reliable source cannot be found for. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Youtube video as a lot of other sources were cited, I've also removed the fansite refs and replaced them with reliable sources from places like People magazine, CNN etc. I've also replaced the TMZ sources with People/CBS refs. If I missed any, let me know. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only other two I spotted were "mariah-charts.com" (which I can't find anything on to show its a well researched site and not a fan-run thing) and Ancestry of Britney Spears which is a self-published work that admits to not being authoritative and calls itself a draft. Also, what are the Amazon.com references for? Can they be replaced with non-retailer refs? Beyond that, the only other thing I noticed is that some of the references need formatting fixing for consistency, such as #34 and #35. Also, what is with the references after 164? I think there may be an error in 164 or 165 because the formatting goes wonky around there? Also, the references for Peak Positions (#167), need to be separate refs, not 7 grouped into one ref tag. Collectonian (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 164 is fixed. Oidia (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for the comment. I'll get to work on fixing them. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done the mariah-charts.com ref, split up ref 167 into 3 refs and removed 3 of them as they were either invalid and/or broken etc. Removed Ancestry of Britney Spears ref. Will look for replacements for Amazon links. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Amazon sources with Google Books sources. Anything else? Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I think that's about it, but let me give one more quick check this evening. Collectonian (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. I appreciate the feedback. I hope I have convinced you to change to a support. :P Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tenative Support pending a copyedit. Everything looks good, but there are several places using colloquial phrases and where the flow is a little awkward. I'd recommend having LoCE or an independent copy editor give it a go over. Very suprised to see such a nicely done article, especially for this particularly person. I don't envy y'all the vandal patrolling you must have to do! Collectonian (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! I'll get a copy editor go over it as I'm not great at that sort of stuff. Mind telling me who "LoCE" is? :P Thanks! Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The League of Copyeditors  :) Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The article has been listed for copyedit there. In the mean time, I'll go through and use what limited copy edit skills I have to remove some. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collectionian, you have a bolded support pending and a bolded oppose; pls clarify, and unbold one of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, sorry, forgot to strike the oppose. Collectonian (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I wasn't quite sure what that was. It seemed to go on forever. I'll get those dead links replaced ASAP. Thanks! Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 17:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all the dead refs. There were a few that the connection timed out on, but I think it was just because my internet connection is being wonky today. When the links are clicked, they work. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a good idea if we archive those web pages? Online news outlines have a habit of deleting/pulling off news article when it becomes old. Though archiving all those web pages might take quite a long time to do. Oidia (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd probably be a good idea to archive them.. it would take forever though. I think we should make that a long-term project. Most of the broken links were from People, which moved from people.aol.com to people.com so all I had to do was fix the domain. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Great job as usual. Cheers! Oidia (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be really nice if people provided a bit more feedback on the tool. The tool doesn't use javascript, the links are checked from the server. I know the people generally don't like to read, so I've tried to make the tool uncluttered. But it only goes so far, before who are confused at what the different colors mean. According to the log on the server most users are unaware that the tool is capable of updating the link. So if you have some feedback drop me a line. — Dispenser 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support :) Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recent contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based primarily on sourcing issues.
    • In several places, the article mentions a controversy but doesn't really expand on what that was. For example, The tour's choreography generated much controversy and criticism, with the presence of young children in the audience. I guess I'll assume that the controversy was that the dancing was too explicit for young children to see, but that really ought to be spelled out. There are a few other instances of this too.
    • " The compilation did not include "From the Bottom of My Broken Heart"" - is there a reason why it should have? The song hasn't been mentioned in the article before, so for people unfamiliar with her career, this doesn't really make a lot of sense.
    • A lot of the names are wikilinked multiple times (album names, magazine names, etc). They don't need to be wikilinked that often.
    • Please wikilink month-day combinations and full dates so that people's date preferences will work.
    • Blogs are no considered reliablesources
    • Some references don't have publishers listed (13, for example)
    • I would not use ancestry.com, as there is already a note there that the info is only as reliable as the information they used. If they used the information that other people uploaded rather than primary sources, then it is absolutely not reliable
    • About.com is not a reliable source
    • Are these sources reliable?
      • Always celebrity (alwayscelebrity.com)
      • mediatraffic.de
      • rockonthenet.com
      • songfacts.com
      • allyourtv.com
      • afterellen.com
      • beautyfeast.com
      • Hollywood Rag
    • This source: Spears's career biography from the booklet of Greatest Hits: My Prerogative is essentially self-published and should be left out if possible
    • There are several biographies of Spears listed. Why are none of these consulted? They would make much better sources than many of the websites and might contain information that would make the article more comprehensive.

Karanacs (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to resolve these issues ASAP. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • "The RIAA ranks her as the eighth best-selling female artist in American music history, having sold 32 million albums in the U.S." Hmm, so the RIAA sold 32 million albums, did it?
  • "Her success as a recording artist has allowed her to work in other media; she has acted in film and television, has written two books, and ..."—I don't quite see the causality here: why should the recording success allow her to act and write books?
  • "followed by an ongoing legal battle"—What does "ongoing" add here?
  • Comma after "London", please.

I won't go on: please let me know when a copy-editor has gone right through the article, fixing the fuzzy logic and ensuring a professional standard of prose. Tony (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note; the issues with non-reliable sources are substantial, and combined with the copyedit needs, indicate that an extended stay at peer review might help better prepare this article for FAC. Our WP:BLP policy demands the highest quality sources for biographies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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/archive2&oldid=1078786857"