Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:12:12 1 December 2019 (UTC).

List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears

 * Nominator(s): Johhnyfrankie13 16:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i already edit this wikipedia is about 3 months and my mission is to get the featured list. I already solved all the error, wrong sources, dead link & many more. I already changed the awards template to the latest one, and some colours on the title. The template that i've changed it look more beautiful than before. But some of the awards sources has been removed because of the wikipedia mirror but I already put this wikipedia as a Dynamic list. Johhnyfrankie13 16:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Three quick points:
 * The awards should all be in one table like List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue, not lots of little tables.
 * Dozens of the entries have literally no source
 * Why have you listed yourself as the author of half of the references???!!!
 * To be honest, I don't think this list is anywhere near Featured quality yet -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I agree with ChrisTheDude's comments. Several entries do not have sources, and the nominator should not list themselves as the author of the references. It would be best to follow the more current FL format and combine the tables into one, but the biggest issue with this list is the sourcing. This is not ready for a FLC, and I would recommend withdrawing it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry i totally thought the author is the one who make the categories. I will resolve this problem as soon as possible but now I think it should to withdrawing. Johhnyfrankie13 19:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)''
 * I would definitely recommend withdrawing, as there are many problems with the article. The quality of the written English is not very good (I would recommend having it copy edited by a native English speaker), there are many rows with unreliable sources or no source at all, and some of the information is simply wrong - you list Britney as having been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a performer, which I can tell you is 100% not true (I think you are misunderstanding the source which says "Britney Spears' critically acclaimed 2007 album Blackout has [been] added to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's music library and archives".  This is totally different to the performer being inducted into the Hall of Fame -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with ChrisTheDude's comments (again). I would also encourage you to look at featured lists on awards/nominations to get a better grasp on the expectations for this type of list. Good luck with the work! Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

100% Oppose. Where do I start? – zmbro (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC) All the things listed don't cover anything. This is clearly nowhere near ready to become and FL. Like Aoba said, have this copyedited by a native English speaker, as this clearly needs it. I also suggest withdrawing. – zmbro (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should only be one table
 * Ref cols should not be sortable
 * Albums are italicized per MOS:ITALICTITLE, not stated next to it
 * "The Bambi Awards is huge European Awards" Uh...what?
 * "has won 1 awards" is stated multiple times
 * "Honors" is spelled both "honours" and "honors" on the same page, which it should be American style
 * What in the world is a "listicle"?
 * The "Achievements" section is cluttered with grammar mistakes, missing references, random capitalization, etc.
 * Idk what made you believe that listing yourself as the author of almost every reference is ok (because it obviously isn't)
 * I click "Blandford 2002" on ref 218 and it takes me nowhere (there's no book listed)
 * The majority of these refs should be archived
 * Many are incomplete and only have urls and titles, if that
 * Ref 59 literally has a "[non-primary source needed]" tag
 * I fully doubt "Britney.com" is a reliable source
 * Refs 122–129 all contain random ">"'s
 * Oppose Multiple issues related to sourcing and the lead needing to be rewritten. Not ready for FL. Recommend withdrawal. Cowlibob (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I oppose too. I think this one could be put out of its misery...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.