Talk:Ariana Grande/GA4

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator:

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I adressed most of the stuff for 2b that is in my control  Brachy 08  (Talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure how to adress the Pasena Playhouse issue  Brachy 08  (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!  Brachy 08  (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. , 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  Brachy 08  (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!  Brachy 08  (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.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 00:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the source number for M Magazine?  Brachy 08  (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)  Brachy 08  (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.  Brachy 08  (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).  Brachy 08  (Talk) 04:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And according to a discussion from 2009, RapUp is a reliable source.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And yes, the discussion is on honeymoon avenue Wikipedia.  Brachy 08  (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.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, according to a discussion in WP:RSN, Teen.com is not a reliable source.  Brachy 08  (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).  Brachy 08  (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  Brachy 08  (Talk) 04:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed  Brachy 08  (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?  Brachy 08  (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)