Britney Spears has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 5, 2005 Good article nominee Listed May 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 28, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted March 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 21, 2007 Peer review Reviewed November 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed September 5, 2008 Peer review Reviewed December 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 5, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance). Britney Spears GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Britney Spears, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Britney Spears on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Britney SpearsWikipedia:WikiProject Britney SpearsTemplate:WikiProject Britney SpearsBritney Spears articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Disney GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Louisiana / Mississippi GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Mid-importance). Template:WikiProject The X Factor Women GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:WPCD-People This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smayer17 (article contribs).

Template:Friendly search suggestions

hello

according to the figure in this link britny spears has 3 octaves(C#3- C#6) [[1]]

I feel like there should be some mention of Original Doll which was an album Britney recorded without the knowledge of her record label. She called and showed up to Kiss FM shoeless on December 31st 2004 and had them play what she said was the first single of her upcoming album. The single was Mona Lisa, and that her upcoming album was named Original Doll. She said the album was half done and it would be out summer or fall 2005 if not sooner. Right after the record label stated none of that was true and it wasn't being released. ^[1]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Britney Spears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404102222/http://livedesignonline.com/mag/lighting_singin_rain/index.html to http://livedesignonline.com/mag/lighting_singin_rain/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224220054/http://www.britney.com/mx/career-highlights to http://www.britney.com/mx/career-highlights
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525095140/http://www.britneyspears.com/2009/05/britneys-perfume-line-on-top.php to http://www.britneyspears.com/2009/05/britneys-perfume-line-on-top.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041102011049/http://www.britneyspears.com/foundation-bsf.php to http://www.britneyspears.com/foundation-bsf.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041025234104/http://www.britneyspears.com/foundation-camp.php to http://www.britneyspears.com/foundation-camp.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashywis (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these recent deletions by Hillbillyholiday, one thing that I think should be retained is the "Spears is known for her iconic performances and music videos" bit. If a number of sources have identified her performances and music videos as iconic, this is "Legacy" material. And it can be easily reworded if need be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Hillbillyholiday has not identified what WP:BLP violation he or she is talking about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Legacy section. For Britney Spears. The mind boggles. She's not Jesus.

A lot of that iconic video stuff is mentioned elsewhere in the article. But we can agree on the insane overquoting and other extraneous fluff at least I hope?

The BLP violation was deliberately removed as a single edit it described, in Wikipedia's voice, Britney's "public meltdown" It's been restored several times as part of blanket reverts. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are not supposed to edit based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationales. Just because you don't think she should have a Legacy section does not mean that she shouldn't. Numerous reliable sources refer to Spears as a pop icon and note her impact on music. So, yes, she does have a legacy.

I don't view stating that Spears had a public meltdown as a WP:BLP violation; it is well-documented as a public meltdown. Furthermore, stating "was inspired [by] the singer's public meltdown" is specific while "was inspired by Spears" is vague. But I don't strongly object to this (your) wording.

I do object to removing material that "Spears is known for her iconic performances and music videos"...if the sources describe those matters in that way. Mentioning her performances in other sections is not the same as noting that they are iconic in the Legacy section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning the need for a Legacy section, yes, but I did not remove it. Most of the material chopped from there is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. The vast majority of it was sourced to MTV. Is this an appropriate source when examining someone's "legacy"? To examine Britney's impact and "legacy" properly, one would surely require a decent source or two that deals exclusively with the matter, or something from a proper indepedent biography. Do we have those kind of secondary sources? Because that's what's needed -- cobbling together sections ad hoc with crappy sources amounts to synthesis and is essentially orignal research.

Perhaps you should ask at the BLP noticeboard if it's cool to say someone had a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean about you being overly strict when it comes to sourcing. Spears is a musical artist, and MTV is one of the top reliable sources when it comes to sourcing musical content. So, yes, it is perfectly fine to have that material sourced to MTV in this article, including as far as her legacy goes. First, you belittle Spears and now you are asking for academic sources for the material...even though it's clear that you think she doesn't warrant such academic coverage?

As for using "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice, perhaps you would be interested in this RfC at the WP:NPOV talk page, where a number of editors are clear that we follow the sources with WP:Due weight and often do not need WP:In-text attribution. Furthermore, Spears has commented on the breakdown, or rather "the breakdown years"; she acknowledges it. She does not disagree that a meltdown/breakdown occurred at some point. So, no, given that and the sources that cover the matter, I can't view it as a WP:BLP violation. Either way, I've already noted that I'm not strongly opposed to your rewording on that bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belittling? It's all getting a bit ...

If Britney Spears has done enough to warrant a legacy section, and has had a real impact on culture, which I don't dispute, there will be good sources available. We should use them. MTV has a mutually beneficial relationship with Spears, it's in both their interests to amplify and exaggerate the importance of events. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belittling? You did state, "A Legacy section. For Britney Spears. The mind boggles. She's not Jesus." You made it seem like such an artist should not have/does not deserve a Legacy section. As for other types of sources about Spears being available, that is no reason to remove WP:Reliable sources. And as for MTV having "a mutually beneficial relationship with Spears," we don't judge sources that way. Like WP:BIASED states, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." If the source was WP:Fringe, that would be another matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In coming here from AN/I, I think what is needed, what should have occurred rather than all the silly edit-warring and other needless drama, might be a proper discussion here. I doubt that the article as it currently stands meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria parts 1a, 1b, 2b, 3b and possibly 4. Should we focus during the protection on discussing what needs to go, and what needs to be changed, for the article to keep its status? We could begin by discussing the prevalence of quotations; summary style is better. And any version including "reveal" generally isn't worth reverting to. Thoughts? --John (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside our difference for the time being, I do think that the article probably needs a reassessment. SNUGGUMS is an excellent editor on matters such as these, and might be willing to take a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It'll take a while to look in full for all the needed comments, but I do agree the article is in subpar state from a glance. I'm also honored you feel that way about me :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SNUGGUMS. And, c'mon, I've praised you before. You deserve the recognition. You are a bit more stern on some BLP matters than I am, and you might cut a line or paragraph more than I would cut it, but we balance each other out that way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Like I said, reading through and noting all the issues that need to be fixed will take quite some time, but I do hope to give a comprehensive review. I've admittedly been meaning to do this for a while but never had the chance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GAR has now formally been initiated at Talk:Britney Spears/GA1 per the above comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]