Talk:Ariana Grande: Difference between revisions
Ganesha811 (talk | contribs) close Ariana Grande good article nomination as unsuccessful (GANReviewTool) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{GA nominee|09:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Brachy0008|'''<span style="color:blue">Brachy</span><small><span style="color:black">08</span></small>''']] <small>[[User talk:Brachy0008|<span style="color:green">(Talk)</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brachy0008|<span style="color:green">(Contribs)</span>]]</small>|page=4|subtopic=Music|status=onreview|note=|shortdesc=American singer and actress (born 1993)}} |
|||
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
||
{{Article history |
{{Article history |
||
Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
|action2result=failed |
|action2result=failed |
||
|action2oldid=1178211046 |
|action2oldid=1178211046 |
||
⚫ | |||
|action3 = GAN |
|||
⚫ | |||
|action3date = 23:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
|action3link = Talk:Ariana Grande/GA4 |
|||
|action3result = failed |
|||
|action3oldid = 1217143155 |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=yes|listas=Grande, Ariana|1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=yes|listas=Grande, Ariana|1= |
Revision as of 23:30, 4 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ariana Grande article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Ariana Grande was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||||
|
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 Beyoncé 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 (青い) (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 (青い) (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 Beyoncé, 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 Beyoncé, 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 (青い) (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
As I stated in a previous discussion—which was ignored, as well as [ignored] edit summaries—{{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: Brachy0008 (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · 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)
- I’m 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! —Ganesha811 (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. —Ganesha811 (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! —Ganesha811 (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)
- ⌘F on Macs or Ctrl-E or Ctrl-F on Windows, generally, should let you find these within the page/references. —Ganesha811 (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! —Ganesha811 (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. —Ganesha811 (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! —Ganesha811 (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 ]
- 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, according to a discussion in ]
- 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! —Ganesha811 (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. —Ganesha811 (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! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- ⌘F on Macs or Ctrl-E or Ctrl-F on Windows, generally, should let you find these within the page/references. —Ganesha811 (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! —Ganesha811 (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. —Ganesha811 (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)
- @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. —Ganesha811 (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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Checking the
- @
- I assume you mean 6a? What kind of help? If the image has an unclear copyright, it should probably be removed. —Ganesha811 (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! —Ganesha811 (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 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 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. |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024
This edit request 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)
- 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 (青い) (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
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 2013–2015: 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. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 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. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 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") 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 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. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 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 2013–2015: 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 (
- 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 “Ariana Grande” 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 — 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. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 19:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not going to respond to the
- 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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2024
This edit request 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)
- 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)
RFC: LEAD IMAGE
|
Hi fellow editors. The conversation about changing Ariana's photo seems to be going nowhere. From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be any decisions being made but constant edit warring, so I thought starting an RFC would be the best course of action. There are so many images available so I am unsure why this has become a problem but hopefully this speeds things along. Comment below which photo you think the article should to change to and feel free to comment on why! Maxwell King123321 01:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- B as its less blurrier than the other two. Maxwell King123321 01:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I added an RFC tag. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment (Summoned by bot): this isn't going to be super helpful to resolving any existing impasse, but honestly, despite the fact that I've been RfC'd to/stumbled upon more than a dozen of these 'pick the BLP lead image' RfCs over the years, and always try to find some encyclopedically relevant criteria by which to provide feedback, this time I just can't see much difference between the options: all would be appropriate choices for the lead image: A and C arguably do a better job of representing the subject within the context that defines her notability, but B is more typical of BLP lead images and is arguably just a little more neutral and encyclopedically objective by just the slightest of degrees as a result. I would not have been shocked to find any of them as the lead image had I arrived at this article as a reader. SnowRise let's rap 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Status quo or RFC withdrawn These images are bad. B is horrible. C isn't really an improvement. This could all be avoided if there was a better image available, this RFC is basically just forcing the issue. Nemov (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Status quo or RFC withdrawn Essentially what Nemov said. Between these three, I would choose C, due to it combining the aspect of her performing as in picture A and the (relative) recency of picture B. Overall, I would let this topic be until we get a clear answer over whether she's touring this year or manage to get a photo that's in the public domain. Isthmus55 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Status quo or RFC withdrawn, i.e., A (current image) (Summoned by bot): A is the only good image of the three, and shows her doing what made her notable in the first place. B is an unusual angle and zoom/crop for a bio photo. She's posed almost as though for a driver's license photo! Shot from below eye level is an unusual angle to see a not-very-tall musician photographed from. C is just a bad photo, with harsh shadows and the subject being underlit. Neither proposed change will improve the article. Vadder (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- B I don’t care about “doing what makes her notable” more than I care about the reading audience having an unobstructed, clear, modern, quality image of her face that isn’t from 2 presidents ago. It’s a perfectly fine image of her in her current age group. No other photos are available of the 2020s and that’s the problem. The fact that this is available and properly licensed (no copyright violations) is a no-brainer. Trillfendi (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)