Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 8
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Recent image
I don't think the latest picture is suitable at all. She looks very awkward in it, like she's about to cry. Also, this pic is taken from a YouTube short, that shows her doing a tutorial for the Vogue channel. It doesn't even look like her, as her hair and eyebrows are bleached. Not appropriate at all. You would think, she's an influencer, not a musical artist.
I would replace it, with an older image, that shows her performing on of her tours. She has her cat-ears one, which is one of her signature looks, and it shows her as a performer. I don't think, that just because an image is recent, it automatically has to be the lead image.
I'm kinda stumped, that there are no other recent images of hers. Grande hasn't been doing much since 2020, but not even an image of on of her last tour in 2019?
It would be great if someone could come with alternatives, at best from the timeline 2020-2023, so it could also be included in the Positions/Wicked section. Still thanks, for PHShanghai for at least making an effort. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for being cordial about the whole image change. I do agree though that its not.. a comfortable looking image. But it's recent and the current lede image is objectively far worse imo because she looks way different now than she did in 2014. Like, different hair, different look, etc. Maybe something from the Sweetener/TUN era makes far more sense as a lead image. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- The 2020 Grammy picture was probably the best she's ever had. It's a shame it was deleted. It was perfect, especially because it shows her for the period between 2019 and this decade. What strikes me is that the selection of photos of her is very limited, especially compared to her contemporaries. There isn't even a good quality one of her last tour. It's strange because she's one of the leading contemporary artists right now. I hope there is someone who can upload some recent pictures, preferably one of her at an event like an awards ceremony or photo shoot. Another problem is that Grande hasn't been active in recent years. Her last red carpet appearance was at the 2020 Grammys. That makes it even harder.
- I've already explained why I chose the 2015 image, but yes, I agree that's not appropriate either. It's just a placeholder until there's a better option. Mirrored7 (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- This image is the ugliest shit I've seen from her, lol. She deserves better. Andrei Reginatto 18 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- This may be a stretch, but could we get a screenshot of one of her Yours Truly 10th anniversary performances and use a non-free rationale and state how her face has changed since, and no free alternatives (from the 2020s) is available? Beulagpinkeu (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we could use a photo of Grande's 2018 God is a Woman live performance at the VMA's? Asknaffffwiki (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Or, this image? (Grande performing Save Your Tears with the Weeknd in May 2021) https://www.vogue.com/article/ariana-grande-iheartradio-music-awards-affordable-fashion Asknaffffwiki (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Backtracking on this, it is not available for use Asknaffffwiki (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Or, this image? (Grande performing Save Your Tears with the Weeknd in May 2021) https://www.vogue.com/article/ariana-grande-iheartradio-music-awards-affordable-fashion Asknaffffwiki (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we could use a photo of Grande's 2018 God is a Woman live performance at the VMA's? Asknaffffwiki (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- This may be a stretch, but could we get a screenshot of one of her Yours Truly 10th anniversary performances and use a non-free rationale and state how her face has changed since, and no free alternatives (from the 2020s) is available? Beulagpinkeu (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- This image is the ugliest shit I've seen from her, lol. She deserves better. Andrei Reginatto 18 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Image
Okay, so I searched through Wikipedia commons, and there are tons of 2017 photos of Grande from her Dangerous Woman Tour, some dark, however some bright also. I was thinking of [file] Asknaffffwiki (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- My fault, the file's name is
- File:Ariana Grande (33269922295) (cropped) (cropped).jpg
- It's a bright photo, has Grande in her signature ponytail, and she looks happy singing. Asknaffffwiki (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024: Blurry Image
The info box images is blurry, (and no, it's not because of my vision), I request that someone changes the image, either to one that is more clear, or to one that is more recent as this image is from 2015, 9 years have passed since then. 174.94.54.119 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @174.94.54.119 We would change it, but a problem is that no images of Grande after 2018 are available for use. We could use images from the Dangerous Woman Tour, but I would ask Mirrored7 about that. AskeeaeWiki (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Although I am not a main English language contributor, nevertheless could you grant me to wright onto this page plzย ? You can check my User contributions in french language. I contrib over 2,500 edit counts.
Best regards. Xuvier (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- ย Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 21:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why is her image from 2013? It needs to be updated. That was literally 11 years ago. Johnson6502 (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- ย Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Lead section too long? I think not
Krimuk2.0, if you think the lead section is too long, please suggest ways to shorten it. I don't think it's too long myself, nor does Livelikemusic, apparently. The response from Mirrored7 was somewhat more amenable to shortening the lead, so let's talk about it. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ultimately, per WP:LEAD, lead paragraphs should be should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. If it were me, to consolidate, I would remove fluff information, such as song titles and the names of her collaborators, and the listing of individual awards for albums and / or songs. It seems like a lot of non-neutral point of view from fans. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga's pages do a perfect job of summing up their careers in the lead without overwhelming the reader. I think the goal should be that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I also think that the lead is too long and should be shortened. However, the content should remain the same. I disagree that the lead has non-neutral point of view too. The content is supported by reliable sources, which are included in the body of the article. I also don't understand the warning on my talk page, Livelikemusic.
- My intentions aren't bad at all, I'm just not as familiar with the rules like you are. Also, Discussions about Her occupations being a businesswoman and a record producer I find pointless, as there are enough sources for it to include it in the lead. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I saw this discussion open and wanted to share my thoughts. I agree with Likelikemusic that the lead is way too long, as per WP:LEAD. The bulk of the information is good, but there is way too much fluff information that can make reading it difficult for users. For example, we don't have to list every record Grande has broken in her career with whatever album is being discussed. Simply saying "broke several records" is sufficient. Since all of Grande's albums are rooted in pop and R&B, we don't have to constantly point that out. I like how Yours Truly, My Everything, Sweetener, and Thank U, Next describes its influences instead.
- Also, Mirrored7, when discussing what occupations to include in the lead, Wikipedia prefers if we only list a subject's primary occupations in the lead. You can happily add record producer and businesswoman in her infobox, because these are a part of her occupation and there are plenty of sources to prove it, but they are not her primary occupations. "Singer, songwriter and actress" are fine as is. Lady Gaga, for example, has also ventured into business and has her own cosmetics line. But "businesswoman" is not in her lead section. It would be in her infobox, while her primary occupations, which are the same as Grande's, are featured. DiaMali (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contribution. I just made slight lead changes. If you don't agree with them, it would be great to discuss them here with you. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! I'm more than happy to discuss them here with you.
- There are a couple of things that I suggest we update or take out and add to the body, if it wasn't added already. The line "Grande is one of the most streamed artists of all time and the most streamed female artist, as of 2021" could be removed to just reflect her being the most streamed woman from the 2010s decade on Spotify. The most streamed woman, currently, is Taylor Swift. Also, according to the accompanying article, Grande is currently the seventh-most-followed person on Instagram. DiaMali (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contribution. I just made slight lead changes. If you don't agree with them, it would be great to discuss them here with you. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga's pages do a perfect job of summing up their careers in the lead without overwhelming the reader. I think the goal should be that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- When I think about it, the lenght is actually very standard. The Justin Bieber and Rihanna leads have around the same, former even has five paragraphs. Like I said, maybe some sentences should be shortened and better summarized, but at the end, it's not really that big of a deal. Mirrored7 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
As previously noted โ per {{Infobox person}} and the hidden note within the lead, it states: Occupation(s) as given in the lead, so including anything outside of singer, songwriter, and actress is inappropriate. Infoboxes are meant to provide overviews, much like leads, and are not meant to be a fan-driven POV of jobs. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Stop the peacocking
A die hard fan of Ariana Grande keep making the edit wars with too many peacocking.
โRegarded as a pop culture icon, she is noted as an influential figure in popular music and as one of the most prominent vocalists of her generation for her four-octave vocal range and signature whistle register.โ
really? There is no source was citied. And even if trustworthy sources say she is , there is no reason for a โWIKIPEDIAโ page to have this much of glorification. Hundreds of sources say Michael Jackson is the greatest entertainer of all time. Does that mean it should be all included in the lead sentence? Keep it neutral Phแบกm Huy Thรดng (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the article precisely, you would see that it's supported by reliable sources. Why it shouldn't be in the lead, if there are multiple sources stating it? It should be removed, because you personally don't agree with it? I always try my best to stay objective, that's why I'm also trying to have a discussion with you. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Apologies
I made a bad call when reviewing this article. I am very sorry. Please know that your article has not failed. Please feel free to re-nominate this article. Sorry, PhotoEditor123 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Melaniawagner (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
In 2023, she began dating fellow actor Ethan Slator, known for his role as Spongebob on Broadway.
- ย Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
New Version of Lead Section
AGF, WP:PUFFERY, It is not necessary to indicate several times that Grande has broken the same records such as "broke many Billboard records as artist or albums" for the reduction of information in the lead section, mentioning 35 "Guinness" world records in the accolades section is enough, the fact that the records are indicated three times in the lead section looks very puffed. I suggest you write that "Grande is one of the most-streamed artists of all time, and holds several records on Spotify, Apple Music, and Vevo", and also in the awards section indicate that "she holds 35 Guinness World Records", this will be enough and people will able to study her records for themselves.
It is enough to write "She has been featured in listicles" and people liking on the listicles can get learned with all listicles where Grande was featured, it is enough to write only the most important one to shorten the lead section leaving only the Billboard as "the most successful female artist to debut in the 2010s" and "Woman of the Year in 2018".
It makes no sense to point out that Grande was once most followed female on Instagram, these records have been broken by other people for a long time, it is enough to write that Grande is now the fourth-most-followed person on Instagram, we specified 35 "Guinness" world records, therefore, this record is not necessary to write in the lead section for this old record there is a section of achievement, plus it is included in the Guinness World Records.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change spouse since she is officially divorced as of 2023. 194.230.147.220 (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- ย Not done: If you are referring to the infobox at the beginning of the article, the text already has dates that indicate when the marriage began and ended. If you're not referring to the infobox, please indicate where within the article the text that you want changed is. Thank you. Aoi (้ใ) (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change her photo an updated one from the 2024 Oscars Red Carpet 2601:46:382:D980:2907:E095:777C:33A5 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- ย Not done for now: Looks like there was just a discussion about changing the photo, directly above this section, so this request is unlikely to be uncontroversial. I have no objection to an image change personally. Tollens (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Occupations
Livelikemusic, you have already warned me a few times on my talk page. You have to know that I have no bad intentions with my changes. I'm just very confused because other artists like Beyoncรฉ or Taylor Swift also have occupations in their infoboxes listed, which aren't in their lead. DiaMali has already agreed for including businesswoman and record producer to her occupations. For both are also reliable sources, so I don't really understand what speaks against it. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- After this edit, which indicated that there was "consensus on the talk page" for including additional fields beyond what is in the lead, I took a look here to see what consensus there was. I don't see a consensus for this in this thread. I'll note here, as I did in my edit summary:
per Template:Infobox person/doc, [the infobox] field is supposed to match what is in the lead
. I looked (waaaaay) back through the edit history to see when this was undone previously and see that Livelikemusic removed this for the exact same reason. Again, I don't see any consensus to include this in the infobox. Aoi (้ใ) (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)- As to whether additional occupations should be added to the lead, this has been discussed multiple times of the years (did a quick search of the archives), most recently in this thread, and there doesn't ever seem to have been consensus for including more than what is currently there. I'm open to adding additional occupations if consensus has changed, but this consensus (or lack of consensus) should be gauged first. Aoi (้ใ) (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- DiaMali agreed with the change, however the topic already has been archieved. There are clear and reliable sources, for this to be added. Other artists, most notably Beyoncรฉ, have their (many) occupations in their info boxes, even if they are not included in the lead. And even then, they also should be included in the lead, because like already stated, there are reliable sources to include them. It seems to me, that there is some kind of bias against Grande, because I opened the discussion months ago, and no one took any notice of it. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, at this point this is getting silly. I have sources that support my changes. There's no one who wants to take part in this discussion, even when it's very clear Grande is a record producer and businesswoman. I find it extremely biased that certain artists get a free pass of how much occupations they have on their lead or info box. The only editor who seems to have have an issue with it is Livelikemusic, but he's barely taking part in this discussion either. I'll wait until Monday. If they are no replies until then, I'm going to re-add them with sources on her info box and lead again. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- DiaMali agreed with the change, however the topic already has been archieved. There are clear and reliable sources, for this to be added. Other artists, most notably Beyoncรฉ, have their (many) occupations in their info boxes, even if they are not included in the lead. And even then, they also should be included in the lead, because like already stated, there are reliable sources to include them. It seems to me, that there is some kind of bias against Grande, because I opened the discussion months ago, and no one took any notice of it. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- As to whether additional occupations should be added to the lead, this has been discussed multiple times of the years (did a quick search of the archives), most recently in this thread, and there doesn't ever seem to have been consensus for including more than what is currently there. I'm open to adding additional occupations if consensus has changed, but this consensus (or lack of consensus) should be gauged first. Aoi (้ใ) (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
As I stated in a previous discussionโwhich was ignored, as well as [ignored] edit summariesโ{{Infobox person}} states: Occupation(s) as given in the lead. And per the hidden note () this alludes to the fact anything beyond the three main occupations fail this. Just because someone ventures into another occupation does not equate it to being automatically notable or noteworthy. Just because X page does things does not mean Y page should, too. That would be as if stating "Josie robbed a bank, so I should, too!" livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
New infobox photo
I suggest we change it to File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped, retouched).jpg because of higher quality and more recentness than the current one @Mirrored7 keeps switching it back to. Should we take a vote? Monsterofain (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ariana Grande/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Brachy0008ย (talkย ยท contribs)
Reviewer: Ganesha811ย (talk ยท contribs) 23:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I adressed most of the stuff for 2b that is in my control Brachy08 (Talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Iโm not sure how to adress the Pasena Playhouse issue Brachy08 (Talk) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and fixed that issue, so no worries there! โGanesha811 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! After a couple of failed GA reviews of this article, I will be taking it on and promise to stick with it and give the article a thorough review. Brachy0008, can you confirm that you are around and able to implement changes based on the GA review? I know it's a high-profile article, so other editors may also comment and respond to GA concerns, but just wanted to ensure that we have a primary nominator. Thank you for your patience. Look for my first pass in the next couple of days. โGanesha811 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008, please promptly deal with the copyvio below and confirm that you will be available to address the other comments throughout the GA process. Thanks! โGanesha811 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- M Magazine is a teen magazine, which should have gossip in it. So, I would presume that it is unreliable. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is the source number for M Magazine? Brachy08 (Talk) 03:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- โF on Macs or Ctrl-E or Ctrl-F on Windows, generally, should let you find these within the page/references. โGanesha811 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008 before we continue on to the rest of the review, I think it's important to address the issues at 2b, 3b, and 5 below. Let me know when you will have time to work on these. Thanks! โGanesha811 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am slowly working on 2b and 3b. I am not sure if I can handle 5 though but I can try. (I do not have admin powers lol) Brachy08 (Talk) 01:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok! For #5, you don't need admin powers, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the issue. If there are any regular points of dispute, you could try organizing RfCs to garner formal consensus on them on the talk page. In general, a page this prominent that is a GA will need a regular level of upkeep to maintain that status. Otherwise, it will probably end up at GAR (good article reassessment) within a year. For example, Barack Obama was a featured article for many years, but eventually was delisted. I don't want to intimidate you away from improving the article - it's very possible to get this article to GA and keep it there, and I believe we can do it - I just want to make sure you are aware that this is a particularly tricky article to do that for given its high profile and popularity. โGanesha811 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Also thanks for the tip. It can really help with reviewing GA articles ngl. Especially Rolling Stone. Brachy08 (Talk) 04:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also yeah, Fanlala is not a reliable source. (per this review from CommonSense Media) (Yeah, it is a review but it is the best we can get). Brachy08 (Talk) 04:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- And according to a discussion from 2009, RapUp is a reliable source. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, the discussion is on
honeymoon avenueWikipedia. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for addressing a lot of this! Could you mark, in the table below, any 2b comments that you weren't able to get to? I'm not sure what you meant by "that is in my control" is all. Let me know about 3b as well! โGanesha811 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- About 3b, I am adressing the examples that you have addressed. Might read the article again to check for some unrelated stuff. Brachy08 (Talk) 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, according to a discussion in WP:RSN, Teen.com is not a reliable source. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for checking. Yes, please go through the whole article with a fine-toothed comb to deal with dead sources, unreliable sources, and instances of overdetail - let me know when you are ready for me to take another look! I can also do some trimming of detail myself, if you would prefer. โGanesha811 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, according to a discussion in WP:RSN, Teen.com is not a reliable source. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- About 3b, I am adressing the examples that you have addressed. Might read the article again to check for some unrelated stuff. Brachy08 (Talk) 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing a lot of this! Could you mark, in the table below, any 2b comments that you weren't able to get to? I'm not sure what you meant by "that is in my control" is all. Let me know about 3b as well! โGanesha811 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, the discussion is on
- And according to a discussion from 2009, RapUp is a reliable source. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also yeah, Fanlala is not a reliable source. (per this review from CommonSense Media) (Yeah, it is a review but it is the best we can get). Brachy08 (Talk) 04:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Also thanks for the tip. It can really help with reviewing GA articles ngl. Especially Rolling Stone. Brachy08 (Talk) 04:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok! For #5, you don't need admin powers, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the issue. If there are any regular points of dispute, you could try organizing RfCs to garner formal consensus on them on the talk page. In general, a page this prominent that is a GA will need a regular level of upkeep to maintain that status. Otherwise, it will probably end up at GAR (good article reassessment) within a year. For example, Barack Obama was a featured article for many years, but eventually was delisted. I don't want to intimidate you away from improving the article - it's very possible to get this article to GA and keep it there, and I believe we can do it - I just want to make sure you are aware that this is a particularly tricky article to do that for given its high profile and popularity. โGanesha811 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am slowly working on 2b and 3b. I am not sure if I can handle 5 though but I can try. (I do not have admin powers lol) Brachy08 (Talk) 01:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008 before we continue on to the rest of the review, I think it's important to address the issues at 2b, 3b, and 5 below. Let me know when you will have time to work on these. Thanks! โGanesha811 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- โF on Macs or Ctrl-E or Ctrl-F on Windows, generally, should let you find these within the page/references. โGanesha811 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is the source number for M Magazine? Brachy08 (Talk) 03:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Brachy0008, it's been a few days and the comments below have not yet all been addressed, and the issues described don't seem to have been checked for in the remainder of the article. Do you think you have time to get to them soon? Otherwise, eventually the review will have to be closed. Let me know - thanks! โGanesha811 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would need some help with 4a. Regarding the 4b issue, there are no alternative images that are available (for now). Brachy08 (Talk) 00:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you mean 6a? What kind of help? If the image has an unclear copyright, it should probably be removed. โGanesha811 (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. It is a typo Brachy08 (Talk) 04:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Removed Brachy08 (Talk) 09:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008, given the number of sourcing issues and amount of trivial detail included, I would say the article is a long way off from meeting Good Article Criteria #2 and #3. I also have ongoing concerns about #5 (stability). The review has been open for 2 weeks and the comments I've made have not been fully addressed in that time. Usually, this would be grounds for a quickfail.
- However, I want to give you a chance to address these issues, given our work so far, your obvious good faith, and the previous failed GA reviews. If you can substantially address the sourcing problems and level of detail (as described in 2b and 3b below) throughout the entire article in the next 72 hours, I think we'll be in a good place to continue. Otherwise, I'll have to close the review as unsuccessful. If these seems like too much in too little time, remember that that's ok! This is a volunteer site and not every article has to be a GA to be valuable or useful. Thanks for your improvements thus far. โGanesha811 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Checking the WP:RSN discussions about Uproxx, it seems to be reliable, however it is a bit more opinion-based. Any thoughts about the source? Brachy08 (Talk) 00:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you can find an even better replacement, great, but if not, I agree Uproxx could reasonably stay in. โGanesha811 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Checking the WP:RSN discussions about Uproxx, it seems to be reliable, however it is a bit more opinion-based. Any thoughts about the source? Brachy08 (Talk) 00:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you mean 6a? What kind of help? If the image has an unclear copyright, it should probably be removed. โGanesha811 (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, 72 hours have passed, and significant issues remain with sourcing and level of detail throughout large parts of the article. As I said above, that means I will have to close this review as unsuccessful. However, please don't be too discouraged by this - your changes have made a big difference already and the article is in much-improved shape from where it was two weeks ago. Getting an article this big and this visible to GA is a remarkably difficult task. In the future, the issues below are fully addressed, and you feel confident the article is ready for another review, please feel free to ping me if you renominate. Thank you for your hard work and happy editing! โGanesha811 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
Can someone please change her picture?
The picture is almost an decade old. Can someone please update the picture? Grande went to Oscars this years, I am sure there must be licensed pictures of her from the red carpet JabSaiyaan (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. There appears to be an edit war ongoing over the photo. Huskago (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @JabSaiyaan I'll search and see if I can find one. AskeeaeWiki (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Huskago @JabSaiyaan If you two could also assist in searching for some available images, please do. Mostly, images from 2024 SNL / Oscars AskeeaeWiki (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- While I have seen no photos from the Oscars that have licenses that can be used here, personally, I don't know what rational argument anyone has against using the only recent photo of her available that checks all the boxes of what a lead image should have. This isn't a case of Billie Eilish, where people want to go frequently changing the photo for no good reason.
- Trillfendi (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- For whatever reason, that one makes her head look squashed. So much so that I found it positively distracting when I happened to visit the article while it was in place. YMMV.
- - 2A02:560:5829:B000:99D:3DCE:4DAE:FDB (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Trillfendi The photo always gets reverted because it "isn't appropriate". However, Elizabeth Gilles (Ariana Grande's long-time friend) posted a candid of her on Instagram, which I believe can be used. Here is the link (slide 7):
- https://www.instagram.com/p/C4WDVKiu8ou/?igsh=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng== AskeeaeWiki (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- We cannot use Instagram photos without the permission or request of the celebrity or if they add the photo to the Commons themselves (which are rare instances but have happened). Though that would be much more convenient if we could. Trillfendi (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you believe the picture used may be outdated. Why does it matter? First of all, Wikipedia pages are meant to give information about the topic, in which it does so. Second of all, even if the picture may be "almost a decade old," she still looks great in it. I think the picture is good for the article because it shows Ariana at a concert, singing, which is what she is famous for. The point: The picture is not the primary part of the Wikipedia page, and I don't think it's so bad that it should be reported on. 72.85.199.109 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have been a Wikipedia editor long enough to know what the expected criteria for lead images are. I made articles like Harry Styles and Rihanna into good articles, so at this point I know what popular articles require. It doesn't matter how "great" she looks in it or not (that's purely subjective and we can all agree that she looks great all the time), it is not representative of her current appearance being that this photo is the only photo available since the 2020s decade even started. In fact this is the only available to use photo of her face since 2016! That photo should be in the 2013โ2015: Yours Truly and My Everything section and replace the zoomed out one. Trillfendi (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Trillfendi Grande looks good in the Vogue photo. We aren't in any position to judge Grande's looks for an infobox image. I support using the 2023 image. ๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ฆ๐ญ'๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐บ, 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just disambiguating that when I say appearance I don't mean anything related to beauty but how she actually currently looks. A 30 year old woman isn't going to look the same as she did as a 22 year old woman and that's why I believe the article ought to reflect that. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Trillfendi Yeah, I agree. An image of Grande from 2015 does not reflect how she looks now. I'll let you make the image change. ๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ฆ๐ญ'๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐บ, 22:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just disambiguating that when I say appearance I don't mean anything related to beauty but how she actually currently looks. A 30 year old woman isn't going to look the same as she did as a 22 year old woman and that's why I believe the article ought to reflect that. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the 2020 photo has been deleted. What is the qualities for a photo to be accepted? Cwater1 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Cwater1 Should comply with Wikimedia Commons' requirements for an image to be allowed. If its licensed for use it should be good (I searched on flickr and did not find anything its always "all rights reserved") ๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ฆ๐ญ'๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐บ, 05:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Trillfendi Grande looks good in the Vogue photo. We aren't in any position to judge Grande's looks for an infobox image. I support using the 2023 image. ๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ฆ๐ญ'๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐บ, 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have been a Wikipedia editor long enough to know what the expected criteria for lead images are. I made articles like Harry Styles and Rihanna into good articles, so at this point I know what popular articles require. It doesn't matter how "great" she looks in it or not (that's purely subjective and we can all agree that she looks great all the time), it is not representative of her current appearance being that this photo is the only photo available since the 2020s decade even started. In fact this is the only available to use photo of her face since 2016! That photo should be in the 2013โ2015: Yours Truly and My Everything section and replace the zoomed out one. Trillfendi (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't know why the lead photo was changed back to 2015 photo? Cwater1 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now that we have consensus, I will change it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't agree with the photo change. The most recent one comes from a YouTube tutorial. Grande is an artist and performer. In the previous picture, she is seen with doing exactly that, while wearing cat ears, one of her signature looks. The blonde hair she currently wears is temporary, and her eyebrows are also bleached. She doesn't look like herself, she looks like the character she plays in the Wicked films. The photo is strangely close, she appears emotional. It just an unflattering photo. Why do you all care if the 2015 picture is older? It's still better than her latest, which doesn't do her any favors. I would definitely agree to add a picture from this year's Oscars. I think this is more appropriate than a random screenshot of her doing a tutorial on YouTube. Furthermore, I see that only one editor agrees, while most just want a more recent image, meaning they don't specifically agree with the latest image. So I'm going to change it back to the one that has been the main image since November until there are better photos of her in 2024. Grande will be on a lot of red carpets promoting her film this year, and there's a chance she'll be touring again. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now that we have consensus, I will change it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the use of the Vogue screen capture (File:Ariana Grande for Vogue Taiwan (cropped).png) even though I am opposed to the use of screen-captured images for living persons' articles. The close-up, non-obstructed image fits in-line with the example set at {{Infobox person}} (as well as sub-templated persons' infoboxes). Whether or not her looks are "temporary" are purely a non-neutral, fan-pointed view point. Whether an image does someone favours, as well, is not a valid argument. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site page. Enough of the ownership bullshit happening here. It's become very clear [many] believe the main image should be changed. Enough is enough. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still, there's no reason to use that image. You seem to be very hostile and biased. I already said, that the image should be changed to something recent at some point, when there is an appropriate one from this year. The main image is good as it is for now, it shows her as an entertainer on the stage, that's what her occupation says, it's much better than whatever that 2023 image is. She doesn't look like herself, it's screenshot, she looks emotional/sad in it. You can't tell me any good reasons why it should be the main, besides that it's the most recent and follows the protocol. I'm always trying to stay objective, and imagine someone else searching after โAriana Grandeโ on Wikipedia, and the first he sees is a random image of her doing a YouTube tutorial, while her occupations clearly says that she's a singer /actress. Why that most recent image of hers should be the main, if it's clearly one of her worst and has no quality at all? Mirrored7 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not going to respond to the personal attacks being thrown as deflections โ what I will say what Trillfendi stated above echoes my feelings entirely. livelikemusic (TALK!) 23:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I seem to agree with using the 2023 photo. I refer recent better for lead. Cwater1 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Trillfendi, Cwater1, Livelikemusic, and I agree to ***change*** the photo to the Vogue 2023 photo. Seems to me consesus is being reached. ๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ฆ๐ญ'๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐บ, 19:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't know that there's anyone at all who doesn't agree that the image "should be changed", as such. That's not the issue. The issue is that there's currently no available alternative able to generate consensus that it would be, on balance, an improvement on the established one. In that situation, my understanding is that leaving it alone until a better alternative does become available is the proper and only thing to do. That individual editors have more vested motivations than that is likely true, but also neither here nor there.
- - 2A02:560:5811:5600:2059:ABFF:D469:8DAF (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)