Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Musicians B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Hip hop B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in hip hop music B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip hop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip hop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip hop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip hop musicTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip hop musicWomen in hip hop music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality: Sex work B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Music / Television / Hispanic and Latino B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force (assessed as Low-importance). Women B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Women in Music B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Torres.stephaniem824, Alondruh (article contribs).

Birth Place: children hospital

"Wrongly acclaimed, it won the Grammy Award for Best Rap Album, making Cardi B the only woman to win the award as a solo artist, as well as the first female rap artist in 15 years to be nominated for Album of the Year. This award should’ve been giving to Nicki Minaj, but she was snubbed."

should be replaced with

"It won the Grammy Award for Best Rap Album, making Cardi B the only woman to win the award as a solo artist, as well as the first female rap artist in 15 years to be nominated for Album of the Year."

Unless there is a credible, factual source for this, I'll make the edit.

[Thanks, User:Kzkzb, for making this edit]

Hello Fellow Wiki Workers , I Would LOVE To Make Some Changes To Belcalis / Cardi B's Biography . Get Back To Me Soon On This Conversation.

love <33. Skyeeeeeeeee (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  A S U K I T E  04:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cardi B is of Trindad and Dominican descent, Trinidad's and Dominican's are Latina not black, they would only be black if they are descended by slaves.--Signed, (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Afro-Dominicans, 15.8% of Dominicans are black; according to another Wikipedia article, Afro–Trinidadians and Tobagonians account for 35.4% of the population of Trinidad and Tobago. Thus there is a significant amount of black people in these countries. Plus, a person can simultaneously be "black" and "Latino/a" (see Afro–Latin Americans). Given that she identifies as a black person and that reliable sources state that she is black, I believe it is accurate to say that she is black in the article (while still acknowledging that she is also Latina, as the article also does). --Kzkzb (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

208.64.35.25 (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cardi B also was caught having sex with her ex-----------

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I also fail to see why this information is notable enough to belong in the article, since Wikipedia is not for celebrity gossip. --Kzkzb (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change the current header picture to this https://mammypi.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/iamcardib_20201202_9.jpg FloralMoon21 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: We can't use copyrighted images. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the article has a huge grammar issue, phrases are tacked onto sentences, ("debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, broke several streaming records, was certified triple platinum by the RIAA,) instead of being seperated off into sentences. The second paragraph in general has a hugely unreadable long grammar issue, that could do much better if the paragraph about her debut album and the paragraph about her release of WAP were seperated into two, and there'd be less overzealous writing of style when it comes to her achievements. For example:

• Her debut studio album, Invasion of Privacy (2018), debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, broke several streaming records, was certified triple platinum by the RIAA, and named by Billboard the top female rap album of the 2010s.

could be better written as:

• Her debut studio album, Invasion of Privacy (2018), debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, and was certified triple platinum by the RIAA. It broke several streaming records, and was named by Billboard the top female rap album of the 2010s.

This is far easier to read for the average reader than the overly long first sentence about Invasion of Privacy. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 06:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, who is saying her aggresive flow and candid lyrics have received critical of praise, without no burden of proof? This is a very bold claim, and apparently unsourced. If you are going to make a strong claim as this, back it up with facts. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 06:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to improve the lead with less complicated grammar, seperating achievements by sentences, and a less ad-like overzealous WP:TONE. The lead as is right now doesn't sound neutral at all, and seems to focus more on her achievements rather than her career. This is my proposal, open to changes. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 13:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 13:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the rewrite suggested. We can and should fix for grammar where appropriate, however the tonal crtiticisms are unwarranted, in my view. For example, the editor asks "who" says Cardi B's style has received critical praise. Well, the rest of the lead listing awards and chart positions certainly imply critical praise. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not against the mention of any said "critical praise", just saying that such claims should have a source, maybe an article saying that she has had critical praise? It's a bold claim. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 05:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per Pyrrho the Skeptic's comment. Also: the italics is for Billboard, why is Hot 100 in italics?, too many sentences, too many "and also". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. As far as citing in the lead, it it is a summation of the body of the article it doesn't need to be cited, as it's already well cited below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]

  The lead for Cardi has huge WP:IMPARTIAL issues where irrelevant achievements are prioritized over career history, sounds like something that someone from her record label wrote instead of being impartial and fair. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 08:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Rogue, on that topic, this week a Good-Article reviewer considered that it is you who keeps promoting the lead section of your favorite artist with puffery; also this month an administrator has warned you for your inflamatory edits in this article, who you openly dislike. That's also why I'm suprised you just wrote "being impartial and fair". Following their warning, please, if you open a rfc, follow it up, don't implement the changes you want either way; that's the process. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought you had no issue with properly sourced edits with reliable sources? I added well-sourced information about how the New York Times said Minaj was the world's biggest female hip-hop star in the lead, since this is common for featured articles. That isn't puffery, stop overusing puffery, a positive edit towards someone is not always puffery. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 04:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Some of the achievements make sense in the lede. The phenomenal success of her debut album and the quick ascent from unknown to international megastar, for instance, are important parts of her career. At the same time, some parts are mostly irrelevant. Her feature on a Marooon 5 song probanly should be mentioned and neither should every time she topped the charts. The record of her being "the only female rap artist to achieve Hot 100 chart-topping singles in two decades (2010s and 2020s)" is pretty funny to me, not only because it is a very specific record, but also because her recording career only spans five years. It seems a very convoluted and circumstantial record to mention, especially since the previous paragraph already informs that she's the first female rapper with more than one number 1 hit single. The final paragraph of the lede could also be made more concise and be more of a summary of her achievements than an enumeration of every award she won. The lede tells the reader the same information (she is the highest selling female rapper ever) in about three different ways. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some changes in the lead so that "Girls Like You" is included; gave the artist the most weeks. BET Awards was just added by some editor, I just removed it, makes it a long list. Regarding the number ones and the decades, there are currently three female rappers with multiple from the 2020s. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This describes exactly how much the lead suffers from WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL issues- it sounds like the lead is over-focused on achievements than actual documentation of her life and career so far. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 05:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the vague lead you're proposing here, for an artist you openly dislike (which an admin noticed recently):

• "the second female rapper to be nominated for Album of the Year."... false, she's the third; the lead mentions it because it happened after 15 years
• "WAP" (featuring Megan Thee Stallion), the lead single of her upcoming second album was her fourth chart-topper."... so there's nothing notable to add about this single?
• "Her feature on "Girls Like You" with pop rock band Maroon 5 was her third number one on the Hot 100"... are you going to enumerate each one like this?
• "and broke several streaming records"... mention one notable?
• the italics "Hot 100".... said several times, it's Billboard Hot 100 or Hot 100.

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations about my own personal tastes, just like political affiliations of editors, have no reason to be thrown around accusatorily in an encyclopedic space. My opinions are my own, and seemingly unlike you, I have been openly transparent about which artists I am a fan of and knowledgeable about. Plus, what is this accusation of me openly disliking Cardi B? Have I ever said or written down in a message "Cardi B sucks she should die?" Because I don't think I haven't. Anyways, the corrections have been done to the proposed lead; however I will maintain that an artist who's only had a career for about five years hitting number-ones in both decades is an unnecessary and quite frankly misleading fact. It makes it sound like she has been in the rap game for a lot longer than she actually has been.

Also, I checked the RIAA site; I can't find a source for Cardi currently being the highest certified female rapper (and also, language like "of all-time" is unencyclopedic when the Digital Singles chart is not something that is set-in-stone forever, it can always change.) Please add sources for these claims about Cardi. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 10:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paging people of the WikiProject: Women In Hip-Hop group for their opinions since this discussion is getting kind of slow; @VersaceSpace, Yikes2004, Blarb48, SunriseInBrooklyn, and Cybertrip: shanghai.^{talk to me} 13:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Light support The lead is currently very well written but reads more like a list of achievements than a chronological summary of the artist's career as per any WP:BLPLEAD, so I would naturally call for a re-write, however, the proposed lead doesn't help much in this regard either and also isn't as well written. —cybertrip👽 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright; per this comment, I changed and summarized the lead to be noteworthy of her important achievements, while still keeping it simple and not filling it with non-lead worthy sentences. Would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks. shanghai.^{talk to me} 14:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is bad enough that this user is trying to force his proposed lead by any means, when he openly dislikes this artist. the RFC should continue for more editors to participate. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been going on for 25 days and the last reply to the RfC was on the 28th of August; it has seen no activity since then. (it's been three. weeks.) so it only makes sense that the discussion would be closed. There is no reason otherwise to keep it going when seemingly everyone has made their point about said RfC. Supporters think the lead has too much WP:FANCRUFT and reads like a list of achievements; opposers think the tonal criticisms are unwarranted. shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. All I'm seeing in the suggested new version is a reduction in detail, all of which is significant to her career. Some slight wording changes are sometimes better, sometimes worse; a net zero. Let's keep the important details in the current lead section. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Binksternet: What important details do you think should be kept in the lead section? I tried to simplify the section to keep the most important sentences to weed out sentences like this:

  • "Cardi B is the female rapper with the most number-one singles (5) on the Billboard Hot 100, and the most cumulative weeks atop the chart, also holding other records among women in hip hop, such as being the only to achieve number ones in two decades (2010s and 2020s), and the only to achieve multiple number ones with solo songs."

  Cardi's recording career has only spanned five years and she debuted in 2017; "two decades" makes it sound like she's had a career for far longer than she actually has; and this specific achievement has not even gotten reliable media coverage (the most I can find is a Forbes Contributor article, [weak] feel free correct me on this with multiple reliable coverage) "Also holding other records among women in hip hop" sounds unnecessarily comparative to other female rappers, and "the only to achieve multiple number ones with solo songs" can be written better as "the only to achieve multiple solo number ones."

  It also doesn't help that a lot of the wording changes I've tried to do (such as citing a specific publication instead of the sentence blindly assuming all media interprets this in a specific way) keep being unexplainably removed. The lead also suffers from grammar issues, such as too many independent clauses making a lot of run-on sentences, and the second paragraph looking more like a list of achievements than encyclopedic coverage of her music. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Entertainment Weekly: the first female rapper to have a No. 1 hit in two different decade, Remezcla in two different decades., HipHopDX, BroadwayWorld... you're writing your interpretation, such statement isn't given. readers are smart; the paragraph starts with the year 2018. Also, yes the whole lead section can be reduced to "Cardi B is a rapper, wins awards and has number ones", but why reducing it that much? Your proposed lead removes the aoty fact, the Diamond fact... The answer is known. — By the way, in your proposed lead (that keeps changing) you replace the content I mentioned above with this: "explores themes of fame, success, wealth, and sex"; so, like all rappers? that's important for the lead instead of the other stuff? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: Two of those sources are weak, and the HipHopDX article says that Madonna and Mariah Carey (featured articles, mind you) have also achieved number one hits in different decades; do you see that fact mentioned in their leads? If this achievement is not notable enough to be in featured article's leads, why should it be otherwise for Cardi B?

add it, then? your argument is very wp:And what about these other articles?. On the other topic, then take the strong sources. Cornerstonepicker (talk)

"Why reducing it that much?" Because otherwise overstuffing the lead full of commercial achievements, as it currently is now, is unencylcopedic and looks messy, not to mention ungrammatical with the amount of run-on sentences in the lead. Also my proposed lead mentions that she has a diamond song, and "explores themes of fame, success, wealth, and sex" is because I want to describe what Cardi's music is about too. We don't want the reader to assume that all Cardi does is be commercially successful and that there's nothing to her music; look at Katy Perry for an example of a lead where it's noted that the subject is both very commercially successful, and also detects the shifts in her music; Its follow-up record Prism incorporates pop and dance along with themes of self-reflection, everyday life, and relationships; 2017's electropop Witness featured a political subtext and a theme of liberation. shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again the wp:What about this article argument. Every article is different, if you're thinking we should model all after that article. You said "we don't want the reader to assume.." readers are smart, you don't have to communicate that a hip hop artist raps about sex, wealth and success, removing encyclopedic achievement for that. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: You're literally misrepresenting policy to fit your agenda.. that policy talks about keeping or deleting articles based on the existence of other articles; what I am doing is citing featured articles, the gold standard on Wikipedia, as reasons why certain content does or does not belong. In fact, if we look at Wikipedia:Featured articles, the second sentence literally reads:

• Featured articles are used by editors as examples for writing other articles.

"if you're thinking we should model all after that article" Actually, yes, because editors are supposed to do that with featured articles. They're prime examples and models of encyclopedic articles for a reason. And your insistence on going against featured articles to keep all achievements of Cardi B in the lead section rather than moving the less notable ones to the achievements section is odd for an editor of your caliber. shanghai.^{talk to me} 09:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "what important details" do I think should stay... the answer is the important ones. If you're rewriting the suggested text then you're looking at a new RfC. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: I implemented some of the changes that had been suggested by other editors; I assume this is standard in RfCs, as it happened in the Nicki Minaj RfC itself. I'm not rewriting it all; just changing and fact correcting. I definitely think Grammy, number one hits, diamond record, critical acclaim, WOTY award are notable & important enough to keep in the lead; and the two decades, top digital singles chart (which I still can't find a source for Cardi being highest certified), and "cumulative weeks" are unencyclopedic and not really notable enough to be in the lead. Put it maybe in the achievements section instead. Again; in my opinion, the bio sounds like a long list of achievements rather than an encyclopedic biography per WP:BLPLEAD shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For that other article you just mentioned you were responsible for a lot of puffery, and that's the opinion of many editors, such wording there was almost ridiculous. Here, then, you're removing fact after fact, which are encyclopedic. On this topic, will "WAP" (full of headlines and coverage) just be thrown in there not naming any of its achievements? you can see the sources for the 'two decades' fact now. What I'm seeing is that you want to remove achievements like the aoty fact and the first-Diamond fact (not just a diamond) as well, to replace it with dull content. "up" is also written twice. and what is an issue is that you keep changing substantial parts of your proposed lead constantly... for example you also just removed this record by "i like it"; this headline doesn't sound encyclopedic? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: "Removing fact after fact?" WP:ONUS states that not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article; I'd argue that your continued insistence on keeping less notable Cardi achievements in the lead rather than the Achievements section is unencyclopedic. I'm not removing them; just moving them to the Achievements section. Also; replace it with dull content? Seriously? That strikes me as a quite blatant disregard of neutrality.

Also, what dull content are you even talking about? The proposed lead still says that IOP was the best selling female rap album acc to Billboard, she has the most #1 songs for a female rapper, and that she was the first solo female rapper to win the Best Rap Album award. It lists her achievements without sounding like WP:FANCRUFT. Literally the proposed lead says "open to changes"; and you changed your RfC lead as well. shanghai.^{talk to me} 09:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the removal of AOTY and first-Diamond fact. Fancruft would be writing "she's the most infuential", "she's the most successful". thats the bias that don't go here. Your argument in the other comments is still wp:And what about these other articles?, and the removal of the most covered achievements just feel like your known agenda against an artist you openly dislike. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: In one of the "see also" essays that in that WP:WAX essay you cite, WP:OTHERCONTENT says:

• While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case, if the review does not pre-date policy changes that affect the material.

On an unrelated note, correct me if I'm wrong, but when you started an RfC at Nicki Minaj, I didn't cry and whine and complain about your biased past with Nicki Minaj, because an RfC is not the place for that; I talked about the content. So why have you been making false accusations and personally attacking me in this RfC? Comment on the content, not the contributor. Stop with these unprofessional attacks. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not only is the proposed intro more neutral, it's more concise and has a better flow. Her numerous achievements deserve a section of their own, and anyone curious about her achievements can just scroll down to that section. Minkai (talk to me) 11:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the proposed, the user writes three achievements, and left behind the most covered ones, such as: the aoty nomination, the first-Diamond for a female rap. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're misrepresenting the argument as if this is about her commercial success being true or not; when it's not; the actual argument here is you shouldn't needlessly stuff your favorite artist with 50 billion of their achievements in the lead. According to WP:BLPLEAD, it doesn't. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article on Entertainment Weekly about the first-ever Diamond song by a woman rapper (is that 'first' not notable on the lead?), mentions, "the first female rapper to have a No. 1 hit in two different decades" among her top records.

There are so many achievements that aren't on the current lead section, not even on the section itself, but on the body. The two-ASCAP Songwriter awards have headlines on Variety, Recording Academy, Billboard; these top achievements belong on the lead section, not hid. I need you to elaborate on how those are 'wp:fancraft' or 'overstuffing'. Instead, your proposed takes spaces with repeated ideas like "Since then, she has earned more number-one singles...", on a lead section that is already short. Btw that was offtopic? but my favorite artist is Puerto Rican. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section called Achievements in the article for all her firsts. If featured articles don't make mention of #1 hits in decades, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, it doesn't make sense for this article to do it either. Especially considering that Cardi has only had a career for five years; if she debuted in 2010 then it would be a different story. Also, please follow WP:HEADLINES. Headlines are not notable sources. Leads are supposed to be short and a summary; your current lead has way too many grammar and tone issues. If you think the proposed lead is "too dull" then make constructive suggestions instead of appearing to canvass, which editors have warned you about on your talk page. shanghai.^{talk to me} 05:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Less complicated grammar"? I'm not seeing a necessity in change. This proposed version compared to how it is now, I don't see much difference besides omitting information and the hankering to call Cardi B an actress in the lead when you can't even fill two complete sentences worth of her TV/Film career for the lead itself in your proposal. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add another citation for Cardi B's new born baby ^[1] Seedorf161 (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]