Britney Spears

This article has recently passed GA. As Britney Spears gets so much attention from the media, being one of the most searched names on the internet, and as pop phenomenon, her article should be in top shape, aka FA status. Oidia (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

Ok, looks like a high-quality article. A few small things that could do with fixing-

 Not done I've asked about it in the Reference Desk, dicussed it in the talk page. And majority of people agreed that Spears's is the correct term. Oidia (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to add a footnote about that spelling from Bartleby's. — RJH (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Although that's the disadvantage of using the lead single's name for the album's name. Oidia (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The source phrased it slightly different, but it's obvious that they are saying the same thing. Oidia (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I rephrased the sentence, and used the Rolling Stone's review as an appropriate reference. Oidia (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Is it better now? Oidia (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's all for now- got to dash for a while. I will review it further either later tonight or tomorrow at some point. J Milburn 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, time to finish my review. Sorry for knocking your comment down Jeff, I just prefer to keep all my reccomendations together.

 Done Oidia (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I didn't exactly mentioned "who" in the article, but I think 3 sources from 3 different countries all saying it is a "comeback" is good enough. Oidia (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Althought not wikilinked due to the absence of an article. Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think it's probably better to just remove the wikilink all together. Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I removed all the information about the "rumor" because no source can be found. I did add a ref to it though. Oidia (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done cited and removal of excess information. Oidia (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed italics, but inserted speech marks as they are "names" of tours. Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Speech marked. Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's everything I saw on first reading. J Milburn 09:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dahl

Automated

A thought

Isn't there some requirement that featured articles actually be about something significant, rather than about drugged-out, worthless, washed up, former pop tarts? Just a thought...

Ha! The answer is, "No." These reviews are based on the quality of the content of the article, not the subject of the article. Sorry. :) --Midnightdreary 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More