Wikipedia:Peer review/Britney Spears/archive5

Britney Spears

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…its Britney Spears. The ungodly obsessive-compulsive media scrutiny this woman has suffered as one of the worlds most tragic cultural icons warrants wikipedias finest work and requires a strict adherence to equal weight of criticism and praise as well as basic human dignity. Before anyone begins to review this article, let me make it explicitly clear I am not a fan of Spears- do not accuse me of adding fancruft to the article as I have not made any significant contributions to it other than minor copy-editing. Likewise, I do not buy into the "spear Britney" hate campaign against her. I was not responsible for nominating it for GA and my sole interest in preparing it for FAC is my universal interest in protecting basic human dignity of living people.

Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading through the article, my major criticism is that it fails to see the forest for the trees. The bio is extremely detailed, yet it gives the reader a poor idea of who she is as a cultural figure and as a musician. The notion of Britney Spears as this tragic teen idol turned sex bomb turned cautionary tale is what makes her interesting, but the details bog down the story. The Atlantic piece on her paparazzi followers is interesting and relevant, and I'll see if I can track down more essay-like pieces on Britney as a whole. Obviously it's somewhat soon to get perspective on her life and career. I would recommend reviewing the Michael Jackson article and adding sections such as legacy/cultural image, musical/vocal style, critical assessment, etc as appropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's totally random that her tours are smushed in with products and endorsements. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is pretty bad - 22 cites (double-counting double-used refs) are to People magazine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good sources I've foundCalliopejen1 (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/18310562/cover_story_the_tragedy_of_britney_spears/print
- recent where is she now piece

Thanks, I've introduced some of the info from the rolling stone article. I feel bad for Britney. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a huge paragraph about critical reception to Baby One More Time better reserved for the album page. That whole section is disproportionally large compared to the other article sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The products and endorsements section should be integrated, it certainly shouldn't come after the legacy section. — Realist² 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
- rollingstone.com or Rolling Stone? Pick one.
- Either authors are given last name first or they are given first name first. Pick one.
- people.com or People Magazine? Pick one.
- MTV or mtv.com? Pick one.
- You get the idea.. .make your publishers consistent across your references.
- http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2007/02/exclusively_on_extra_britney_s.html dead links
- http://lifeandstylemag.hollywood.com/2008/01/exclusive_britney_not_on_drugs_1.php dead links
- The following sources are lacking publisher and/or other needed bibliographical information:
  - http://knowhere.co.uk/3692_heroes.html (current ref 13)
  - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3052143.stm (current ref 34)
  - http://www.womencelebs.com/c8/showcelebrity_categoryid-859.html (current ref 50)
  - http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:psxvad6kl8w4~T1 (current ref 51)
  - http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=290150&model.vnuAlbumId=551073 (current ref 52)
  - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0275022/ (current ref 59)
  - http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/spearsbritney/blackout?q=blackout (current ref 121)
  - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090902135.html (current ref 131)
  - http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0205_sam_brit_wm.pdf (current ref 143)
  - http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UKCNL01&show_article=1 (current ref 144)
  - http://music.ndtv.com/story.asp?id=ENTEN20080040046 (current ref 145)
  - http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213350,00.html (current ref 149)
  - http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/2008/categories.jhtml (current ref 155 ) It's a bare url right now.
- What makes the following sources reliable?

Hope this helps. Note that given the sheer size of the references list, I don't claim to have caught every small MOS error. I mainly reviewed for source reliability. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)