Talk:Ariana Grande

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)

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)

We should do a vote. We should do the 2023 photo. Cwater1 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 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.

---

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)

thanks! Brachy08 _(Talk) 06:45, 3 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)

Adressed one of the copyvios, can’t find one of them Brachy08 _(Talk) 22:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's in the first paragraph of the section "2018–2019: Sweetener and Thank U, Next" —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:01, 20 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 avenue Wikipedia. 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 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:26, 26 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)

@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. —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)

• 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 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.	What are the sources for the claim that Grande is "one of the most prominent vocalists of her generation"? How about the sources for "pop icon"? Per WP:LEADCITE, it's ok if these sources are not in the lead directly, but they should be in a relevant passage in the body of the article somewhere.
	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).	Citations with multiple references, like #4 (on Hose-McCann communications), probably don't need so many. Pick the most reliable source or couple of sources that include the relevant information and the rest can be removed. Is M Magazine a reliable source? Entertainment Tonight is probably not reliable enough to be included (#10, Nonna) Some citations are inconsistently formatted - for instance, #s 12 and 13 give the publication as South Florida Sun-Sentinel, unlinked, while #14 gives it as Sun-Sentinel, linked. The first two are in in cite-website format which should be changed to cite-news. Please check for this issue elsewhere as well. The MTV biography (#16) links to a generic page, though the archive works. Please update the link or mark it as a deadlink (there's a line for that in the template). Entertainment Cheat Sheet is not a reliable source. Is Girl2watch.com a reliable source? #22 (her own official website) is probably not independent enough to be used for that kind of information. Please find a different source or remove the info. TVByTheNumbers no longer exists - please mark the link as dead. Is it a reliable source? Used at least twice (#26, #31). The Winx club Nickelodeon source doesn't actually support the sentence, it just states that she was cast, not that she voiced the role for two subsequent years. New source needed. Stephen Thomas Erlewine should be given as the author of the AllMusic bio marrsattacks.com does not appear to be a reliable source and the original link is dead. Please replace with a more suitable source. #41 (Popular Song) - we don't need a direct youtube link if there's a reliable secondary source which addresses the song. The Pasadenaplayhouse citation is a bit of a mess - if possible, please track down the original article on broadwayworld.com and cite that. Fanlala, the original link is dead. Is this a reliable source? Doesn't appear to be on first spec. Is Rap-Up a reliable source? Was Teen.com a reliable source at the time of the article used (2013)? TheSlanted.com - the original link is dead. Is this a reliable source? Entertainmentwise does not appear to be a reliable source Queerty.com doesn't appear to be super-reliable - though it's part of a larger network, I can't find an editorial policy and they blur the lines between influencers and journalists according to Q Digital's site. HiddenRemote link is dead - also, Fansided does not appear to be a reliable source. Please replace #116 is missing a publisher (Huffington Post) ("Incredibly imitates whitney...") Ditto for #117 by D'Addario Is Self (Lanquist) a reliable source? Stopping at 130 for now. There are over 500 citations in the article! Please do a thorough check for some of the broader issues mentioned above (use of cite-news vs cite-website where appropriate, missing author names, links that no longer work, unreliable sources used repeatedly). Not every comment above has been addressed, and there are still many unreliable or potentially unreliable sources cited throughout the remainder of the article, including but not limited to: Eonline.com, The Fader (PR), E! News Australia, TicketNews, Forbes blogspam, Buzzfeed (not Buzzfeed News), iheartradio.com, meaww.com (MEA Worldwide), E!, The Face, Uproxx (marginal), neonlimelight.com (Limelight Spotlight Q&A), Hollywoodlife, Footwear News, US Weekly, cambio.com, Gay Times, Visual Capitalist, celebdirtylaundry.com In addition, there are formatting issues and missing information, such as missing authors, publishers, capitalization (seeing a lot of lowercasing - jezebel, npr, pitchfork, Vh1...) The 104.3 myFM Lana Del Rey interview doesn't appear to contain the information it's being used to support. ^ This takes us up through #292. The article has serious sourcing issues and will require a lot of work to get it to GA standard. All these unreliable sources should be removed, and the information they support should be removed as well, unless a reliable source is found with the same details. Please also go through sources #293-492 and remove other unreliable sources (you can always check at WP:RSP and WP:RSN. More unreliable or poor sources; Rappler (content is an ad, not actual news), Hits Daily Double, Capital FM, Soompi, TigerBeat, RCN Radio, Febre Teen, Create & Cultivate (PR, also misspelled), Ask Anything Chat, Epic Media Labs, Inquisitr, Routenote, Nickutopia (misspelled as Nikutopia), Refinery29 (marginal), TMZ, TheNational.ae (PR), Alist (PR), LaunchMetrics, Product Placement Blog, I-Spot, PR Newswire (PR), The Zoe Report, PR Newswire again, Cohan (Shelley, Forbes contributor), WetPaint, Mirror, CathNewsUSA, Yahoo Celebrity (marginal), Cosmopolitan (marginal), Business Insider (marginal), Is Zonales reliable? The Yahoo YDE source is a copy of a Billboard article - swap in the Billboard original. Missing details on #323 (signs with new management) from Billboard. #360, OfficialArianaGrande, about her charity, is insufficiently independent to be used a source for a flattering claim like that. Need a source that's not her website. Ditto for PIX morning news, not independent enough since it's just her saying it.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	"the only artist to have debuted the first single from each of her first four" is a borrowed phrase from here and should be reworked. This is clear copyvio and should be removed immediately. (" is set to acquire the physical assets.... bankruptcy earlier") Above issues addressed. Earwig finds nothing else obvious; hold for manual spot-check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	In contrast to some of the overdetail below, I find the Manchester bombing a little undercovered and wouldn't mind a couple more sentences on its impact on her personally. As I recall there was a lot of sympathy and it was just an all-around horrific thing for everybody.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article definitely has an issue with "going into unnecessary detail." As a famous pop star and celebrity, there is a whole industry, including many reliable sources, dedicated to reporting on just about everything Ariana Grande does in public. However, not all of these details need to be included here. This article is packed with unnecessary details about very minor appearances, ranking listings, or incidents. I will list some examples below, but a thorough pass of the whole article should be made to remove trivial detail. That will help the article become a proper summary of her life and career, rather than appearing to be written for fans of Grande. On October 9, 1998, during the inaugural regular-season hockey game of the Florida Panthers at National Car Rental Center, Grande became the first child to ever ride a Zamboni in the brand-new arena during the first intermission, the result of her parents' $200 winning bid at an auction. Is this relevant in some way? Strikes me as trivial detail. The following month, Billboard magazine ranked Grande at number four on their list of "Music's Hottest Minors 2013", an annual ranking of the most popular musicians under the age of 21. Rolling Stone placed this song at number 40 on its list of The 50 Most Inspirational LGBTQ Songs of All Time premiered at the 2014 Radio Disney Music Awards on April 26, 2014 Billboard listed the single among the greatest Holiday songs of all time, while Official Charts Company ranked it the best biggest female Christmas song of the 21st century Grande made a cameo appearance in the comedy film Zoolander 2 starring Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson Grande won an online voting poll on Entertainment Weekly as the "best host of the season". In May 2016, Grande appeared on The Voice season 10 finale, performing the second single from the album, "Into You", which peaked at number 13 in the United States, and duetted with Christina Aguilera on "Dangerous Woman". "Singer makes guest appearance on singing show" is very run-of-the-mill. In August 2016, Grande performed a tribute to the late Whitney Houston on the season finale of the ABC television series Greatest Hits and headlined the opening night of the second annual Billboard Hot 100 Music Festival, performing a nearly hour-long set of her own songs. Similarly, "singer performs tribute to another singer" and "singer sings at music festival for an hour" are very normal things for a pop star to do and not really worth including. Summarized information about her own tours and *major* other performances is good - this sort of detail is probably too much. Aside from music, Grande filmed a commercial for T-Mobile that premiered in October 2016 The same month, Grande and Stevie Wonder appeared on the season finale of the US competition TV series The Voice, performing their collaboration "Faith" from the soundtrack of the 2016 animated film Sing. "Faith" was nominated for Best Original Song at the 74th Golden Globe Awards. At the end of the year, Grande participated in the Jingle Ball Tour 2016. On March 31, 2017, Calvin Harris released a song titled "Heatstroke" from his album Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1, which featured Grande, Young Thug, and Pharrell Williams. On April 27, 2017, Norwegian DJ Cashmere Cat released the fifth song "Quit" from his debut album 9 featuring Grande. In general, unless they were particularly impactful, or relevant to her initial rise to fame, guest appearances on other people's songs are probably not important enough to be mentioned here. In August 2017, Grande appeared in an Apple Music Carpool Karaoke episode, singing musical theatre songs with American entertainer Seth MacFarlane. Stopping before the 2018–2019 subsection. Using the above comments as a guide, please go through the remainder of the 'Career' section and remove this kind of trivial detail where you find it. Happy to provide further guidance if requested. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Things like "debuted seven live performances on Vevo" and "headlined a Fortnite concert" is another good example of the sort of overdetail that simply doesn't need to be included here. This isn't supposed to be an exhaustive reference of everything Grande has done - it's a *summary* of her life and career.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Other comments to come, but this quote is just too egregious as flattery and should be significantly shortened: Composer and playwright Jason Robert Brown wrote in a 2016 Time magazine article, "[N]o matter how much you are underestimated ... you are going to open your mouth and that unbelievable sound is going to come out. That extraordinary, versatile, limitless instrument that allows you to shut down every objection and every obstacle.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There have been significant expansions in the last week in several sections, and a number of recent discussions on the the talk page about neutrality, changes to the lead, and other issues are not fully resolved. This makes it difficult to expect that if it reaches GA standard during this review, that it will remain there without significant ongoing effort. What are your thoughts on this issue?
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.	File:Ariana Grande interview 2016.png - the Commons page is not very clear on why this image is not under copyright / public domain. Could you clarify or improve the Commons description? Issue addressed - provisional pass but will have to recheck at end of review.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Ariana Grande Performs at Amalie Arena.jpg is not very high quality and should probably be removed. Is there an alternative photo that could be used for that period of her career? Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above 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.

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)

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)

I like helping with contributing. Cwater1 (talk) 17:09, 23 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)

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 “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)

Maybe move to the voting phase. Cwater1 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If it even needs that. It was changed with consensus, and changed back without. Huskago (talk) 20:53, 4 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)

2023 photo if it can be used? Cwater1 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

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)

New lead image

• 
  A (current image)
• 
  B
• 
  C

• 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)
• Status quo or RFC withdrawn per Nemov. If people want an image of her face from yesterday I am sure they can find one through their favourite image search. This RfC is just a waste of everyone's time; if the RfCer really wants to "speed things along" they should withdraw this now—but that's not what they mean by "make a decision", is it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  If people want to know why this article continues to fail Good Article nominations while her peers have them, this is a prime example of why. Trillfendi (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  These comments, both AirshipJungleman's and your own, are not terribly appropriate or helpful. Airship, if you're going to make oblique implications that the OP is acting in bad faith, then you should probably speak more plainly about what that behaviour is, rather than making vague, passive-aggressive suggestions. That, or better yet, take any behavioural concerns to an appropriate community forum and confine your comments here to the content issue or valid and clear procedural objections, as the TPGs direct.

  As far as I can tell, having read the preceding discussion, this is a procedurally and contextually valid RfC. There was an editorial dispute, and as the previous discussion (and the RfC itself) demonstrates, there was a wide span of perspectives on the best way forward that was resulting in a deadlock among involved editors. That's exactly what RfCs are for, and though I personally often feel that it can be a bit silly when a group of editors on some celebrity's BLP can't reasonably agree on a picture and have to RfC rather than one side or the other just giving way, it's still better than wasting community time on a slow moving edit war, and RfCs for determining the lead image are thus not uncommon.

  Frankly, these repeated "Status quo or withdraw RfC" !votes (being unaccompanied by a valid policy reason for retraction) feel like an effort to pressure one side to back down when the OP appears to be doing nothing more than following our typical and recommended dispute resolution process. Just let people have their say and we'll hopefully have a valid consensus at the end. Either way, implying bad faith conduct or a problematic approach without actually identifying policy non-complaint behaviour or process is not helpful in the least. Meanwhile, Trillfendi, piling one vague broadside about another editor being a problem on top of the first is also non-productive. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t say the editor was being problematic. I said it was indicative of one of the very reasons this article consistently fails Good Article nominations while her peers (Miley Cyrus and Harry Styles as two examples) succeed. That’s not the same thing. Trillfendi (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I was a "Status quo or withdraw RfC" !voter, and I don't want to pressure anybody. I, for one, am not really arguing policy either, just editorial judgement.

  The main underlying thesis of this RFC is something like "We need to change the photo, so change it to what?", which has a bad predicate. This is not a case of "We need to change the photo" as in the photo is bad, useless, or added in error. It should be "We have a good photo, but is this one better? How about this one instead?"

  Another underlying thesis of this RFC is that living persons still active in their careers should be represented by current photos. There's no policy to that effect (nor should there be), but it's good to strive for that. I commend striving for that.

  Find a good current photo we can use, or take one, and I would probably support the change. But "that's so last decade" (so to speak) is not a good argument in policy or in editing. Vadder (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  Those are fine arguments (or rather counter-arguments) about suggested options/approaches. But there certainly was (and is) an active editorial dispute. And if anything, the approach the OP supported had marginally greater support in the original thread, as I read it as a respondent, after the fact--but definitely there was an impasse all the same. So implications that the RfC is in some way problematic, bad faith, or an abuse of function do not appear to add up to me.

  So while I certainly give full trust and AGF to your assertion that you don't want to pressure anyone, I'd suggest that "Status quo" would have sufficed in the circumstances, and certain other comments above definitely were heavy with the suggestion that the OP was pressing forward with an RfC that was inappropriate. And as an uninvolved community respondent looking at the previous discussion, I just don't see how that's so. Regardless, anyone suggesting a RfC be withdrawn ought to be citing to policy and specific facts showing why there is abuse of process. Failing that, they should just focus their comments on the content issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I take your point, and have struck the "RFC withdrawn" portion of my !vote, as I do not want to be interpreted as suggesting bad faith.

  The discussion above was a debate among people who want to change the image, but hadn't agreed to what. Then an RFC was opened, and naturally, though incorrectly, the starting position of the RFC was where the debate ended: "We're changing the photo, but to what?" You shouldn't limit an RFC like that.

  An RFC was perfectly appropriate here. This RFC assumes that change will be its outcome ("Comment below which photo you think the article should to change to..."), and that is not a good framing.

  Ultimately I don't think it matters. A number of respondents are ignoring the actual question and opining for the status quo, as I did. I'm sure those will be considered duly by the closer. Vadder (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  B - more recent and clear Cwater1 (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  This dispute is silly, that's why it should be withdrawn. The reason there's a dispute is because there's not a good alternative presented. This RFC is a waste of valuable resource time. If there was as good recent image then a RFC wouldn't be required. Instead, this is going to be a long drawn out process that will be pointless as soon a good, recent image is found. I wrote the original withdraw case for a good reason. It's a waste of time. Nemov (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I like A. It shows her performing and gives a good overall perspective of her stage presence. MiztuhX (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• B. A lot more clearer than the other two. B is also more recent than the other images. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• C Is a little sharper, shows her performing and is more 'representative' of her image than A or B. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• I vote for C as it is a lot clearer than A and far more representative of her artistic persona (the very reason this page exists in the first place) than B. Monsterofain (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• I personally prefer B. It’s what she looks like now. Huskago (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• A > B > C, but as Snow Rise points out, they’re all fine. I see no issue with the RfC, assuming there has been genuine discussion though; remember, a vote for status quo is different to a vote for an invalid RfC, and although we might think this is a trivial topic, that’s not enough to say it is not valid. At this point I would rather see a quick straw poll of an RfC than a protracted discussion on whether the RfC should be held. — HTGS (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• C. It is more representative of her as a singer and does not look too outdated. The lighting is not the best, but neither is A or B. Senorangel (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• None of these look particularly good. The first one is the best of the three, but there might be better ones on Commons. SWinxy (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  The one taken at the 62nd Grammys unfortunately was deleted... but I liked it. It was this. Trillfendi (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  More specifically, it was this. Isthmus55 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there any other recent images to use to update the lead image? Cwater1 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  None that are available in Commons. If someone finds one that is suitable per copyright law, this whole debate can be settled. Trillfendi (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  The 2020 image could be used if the 2023 image was erased from the Wikipedia, that's if it isn't erased from Wikipedia use. Cwater1 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  It was too long ago for me to remember but yeah, that angle. Trillfendi (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• A (preferred) or C. Really, they're all awful to one extent or another, be it blurry, out of focus, low resolution, or some combination of all three. It's no wonder that aggregators of our content replace our image with fair-use images (only showing the main image when explicitly listing Wikipedia as a search result). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Preferably, there should be an entirely new picture uploaded and used (I'd recommend from the oscars, if possible), given that there don't seem to be any high-quality pictures from after 2015. That said, B is the best option (though commons has a slightly better version, I think). C has poor lighting, and A is extremely low-resolution. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A is the perfect lead image for now. It shows her siganture look, which are her cat ears and her ponytail. B isn't really doing her any favors. It doesn't show as a performer or artist, but more as an influencer doing tutorials on YouTube. This isn't Grande's main occupation, it looks random and doesn't stand for what Grande is known for. Plus, she looks unrecognizable in it. I can't see why anyone would think it's a good lead image, even if it's the most recent. C looks very awkward, it looks like someone is making a joke, and she's cracking about it. However, I could see it, working as the main image for her discography article, just because it's more recent. But not as the lead image, A is simply the better image, when you compare them both.

At this point, it's really time for a new image, I'm tired of having the same discussion about the same subject, even when it's clear, that there's no better option at this moment. Grande has started doing press for Wicked, it must be a matter of time until we a good recent image of hers from this year. Mirrored7 (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I would use this image. But sadly it belongs to Shutterstock. Trillfendi (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead, again

Following up on a bunch of prior discussions, but most recently this one, which I did not participate in: per MOS:LEADLENGTH, Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words. The present lead is more than 600 words long spread through 22 often very long sentences. While I don't think that's necessarily a problem in of itself, I do think we need to be judicious about when and how the lead is expanded, especially since Grande herself is still young and the lead will likely continue to grow as her career progresses.

I appreciate the intent behind trying to expand the lead to make her notability more evident, but I think the article lead already makes clear that Grande is [a]n influential figure in popular music, [a]mong the world's best-selling music artists, and described as one of the greatest vocalists of all time by an influential music publication. How much does it really add to the article to also say that she is a triple threat entertainer, which is repeating a phrase buried in the third paragraph of the public image section of the article, and is doing so really WP:DUE? Not everything that is in the article needs to be repeated in the lead, and I think the lead already more than adequately indicates who Grande is and why she is notable. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition, Escape Orbit's edit here seemed entirely appropriate and was an improvement, IMO. It conveyed the same information in six fewer words. The edit was reverted with the edit summary "no improvement." I disagree: directness (and NPOV) is a plus.

Similarly, the clause {{tq|she is noted for her four-octave vocal range and whistle register conveys the information adequately. Saying, she is noted for her four-octave vocal range and her signature use of the whistle register, as was reverted to here doesn't add very much meaning. It's also not clear who is calling her use of the whistle register a "signature" of hers--there's nothing in the article body to support this and it's not NPOV for Wikipedia to say this in its own words. Further, it's another bloating addition to the lead.

I would appreciate to hear what other editors think. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I too would like to know the thinking behind "numerous accolades". "Numerous" here tells the reader nothing (is it 5, 50, 500, 5000?), except to put forward the opinion that the writer thinks that it is a lot. I'm also not clear what the phrase "throughout her career" conveys? Again, it is advancing an opinion that the reader should be impressed not only by the number, but the distribution of her awards. Or is it to distinguish these awards from those she received outside her career? Does she have any of these? So why say it? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: do you have anything to say that would explain what makes the text you reverted to better? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Since @Mirrored7: is declining to discuss the reason they reverted my improvement to the article, I will restore it.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

General observation: I looked at a bunch of articles about musicians with comparable notability just now. Not a single one of those ledes clocked in below 400 words, and a couple were even longer than this one.

Personally, I think they're all excessively detailed and would indeed be better at half their current length, just as the MOS section you quoted suggests. My SOP for articles with lengthy ledes is to read the first paragraph and then skip straight to the body, otherwise I tend to end up feeling like I wasted my time by reading a bunch of stuff twice over.

Objectively, it's probably fair to say that this represents something of a consensus among the editors of this type of article that it's more important for ledes to be comprehensive than to be concise. This one's lede does not seem excessively long to me by that standard.

- 2A02:560:58C3:0:EDE8:7876:C892:D12E (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff

@Mirrored7, the removal was done here. The edit summary was: GA4: Removed unnecessary detail. The removal was done in response to Item 3B of the review, which you can view above.

Hours of work was put into the review by Brachy0008 and the reviewer. If you want to try to undo the edits made in the GA review, I personally would appreciate it if you would discuss it here first, out of respect for the hard work that was put into the review. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't even understand what's there to discuss. Those are Grande's most recent achievements, and should be included in the career section. @Brachy0008 Please explain to me why you removed this. It's well sourced content and has nothing to do with the discussed topic itself. Mirrored7 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason for the removal is pretty self-explanatory if you read the GA review, and I agree with the reasoning behind the edit, even though I don't agree completely with the edit itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: There's a lot of stuff that might be reliably sourced but may not be due for inclusion.

While I would support re-adding the statement about 1) the album and second single debuting on the Billboard 200/Hot 100, and 2) Grande topping the songwriter/producer charts, the rest of it (rankings compared to other artists, x-number artist to top certain charts simultaneously) is the type of overly detailed material flagged for attention in the GA review. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, then I would re-add it and take those parts out. It's really not that big of a deal. However, removing the whole content, isn't right either. Mirrored7 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I felt that those kinds of information delved into unnecessary detail that are best shown in the respective article of whatever this article mentions, even though they were well sourced. Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Branchy08--sorry, I did a partial self-revert before I saw your comment here. Please feel free to revert me if you think the info I added was too much detail for this article. I do want to see this article meet GA status one day and I don't want to jeopardize that. Thank you again for all the work you put in on the GA review, you did a great job with it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)