Talk:Evan Rachel Wood

message: There are so many citation tags in this article that I'm wondering if it still qualifies as a Good article. Note WP:BLP. 69.72.27.117 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the original review. It was nominated and then passed without any evidence of a review. A different time back then. It has passed a sweep, but I agree it needs more work to stay Good.  to see if anyone is interested in working n it. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still GA quality? 

message: "By 2017, Wood was in a relationship with her Rebel and a Basketcase bandmate, Zach Villa" does not seem like a neutral description to me. Why would "rebel" be capitalized? And "basket case" -- even worse! EllenCT (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: EllenCT Rebel and Basketcase is the name of their band. Rublamb (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: Should Marilyn Manson and/or Zach Villa be included in the infobox's "partner" field? I'd argued they should be left out, as neither meet the "unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership" condition established at Template:Infobox person. There's some disagreement on the matter.
 pinging editors who recently added/removed this parameter; I'll drop a note at the IP editor's talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Even I'm still not sure, because the template is unclear. In the "Usage" section, the parameter is defined as an "unmarried long-term partner". In the "Parameters" section, the template says a partner should be included "If particularly relevant, or if the partner is notable; "partner" here means unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership (of any gender or sexual orientation), not business partner." Marilyn Manson is certainly notable, not a business partner, and their relationship has received quite a substantial amount of notable coverage from reliable sources over the past year for his name to be included in the infobox. I'm not sure Zach Villa meets the same criteria. If I'm misreading the template, please feel free to revert. I'm genuinely nonplussed at this point, but am not so attached either way that I particularly care. Your call. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the guidance is unclear. I'm reading the "Parameters" section as well, and thinking that the conditions that need to be met are: . But, I can see how you'd read that differently. Let's see how others feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the parameter from the infobox for the time being. Like I said, I'm nonplussed, but figure the best approach would be to leave it out until consensus is established to put it back. Hope this helps. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partners in infobox 

message: section is fully unnecessary in a long article, that was three years ago, a tweet is not newsworthy, i can’t think of any other wikis that reference tweets and include a quote from the subject of the tweet condemning it, and it’s pretty abhorrent that gets as much space as her being a victim of abuse and work to prevent abuse to others. 47.147.6.172 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There was fairly extensive coverage, flaring up again in March 2021, but it's quieted to whisper since then. I'd favor a heavy trim and a move to an mention in the Career section. Maybe something like  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy surrounding the comment received substantial, sustained coverage from multiple reliable sources, from the time she made it in January 2020 to at least February 2021. I don't believe the comment and resultant controversy would be relevant to the career section, because it isn't a part of her career. It was a comment she made on Twitter. A controversy section might be more appropriate? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't fully disagree with you on "sustained", as I'm mainly seeing a flurry of new coverage just after the tweet, silence for about a year, a flurry of coverage of Vanessa Bryant's response in March 2021, and then silence again. I do think there's enough that I'd oppose full removal, but highlighting via a subsection seems undue. Bundling in a WP:CSECTION wouldn't be an improvement. You're right that "Career" is a stretch. Maybe at the end of the Personal life top segment, right after the Wood/Bell custody dispute paragraph? A slight deviation from chronology is probably worth it to keep the relationship-themed material together. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your suggestion. For the record, I was never happy with the current section title. I believe I re-created that section – after it had been there previously for several months but deleted without explanation – as "Kobe Bryant controversy" or something generic like that. It was another user who rewrote to the current title. And I wasn't in the mood of an argument on a high-profile page, so just left it alone. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Firefangledfeathers' trimming and placement of the material are very appropriate. Not sure we need the four refs to verify the case's existence, but that's not a major issue. KyleJoantalk 00:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback  but I can't help but have second thoughts about this. I think it would be mutually beneficial for  to self-revert until more substantive feedback is received. There is most likely a need make to an edit along these lines in the long run, but something is bothering me here. I feel other, genuine editors should weigh in before any changes are made to this article based on a request from some random IP from the Industrial Hills Recreation Center. Considering everything that's going on here and elsewhere, we should all probably err on the side of caution. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we present the material in the most succinct manner if we're looking to err on the side of caution, especially since we're discussing a BLP? The charge, plea, dropping of the case, lawsuit, and settlement are out of place here. It's neither relevant nor due to spell out and qualify why Wood's statement received criticism. This is only a marginal comparison, but take , on which we see the claim  Can you imagine adding "A racist is a [insert description], and the acts of promoting racism include [insert claim]"? KyleJoantalk 02:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope no-one minds, but I've rephrased the part of the sentence "", which contained a typo. Feel free to revert me on these next points: I re-added the link to 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, and rephrased to "wrote a message on Twitter", because I don't believe "tweeted" is encyclopedic language. But even I'm not happy with my wording, so please rephrase as you want.If I remember correctly, a lot of the context regarding Bryant's sexual assault case was added by at least one but maybe two editor(s). But re-reading (a year later), only one of the four sources featured explicitly discuss Wood's "tweet" in context of the assault case, so I've removed the other three sources. This hopefully addresses the WP:REFOVERKILL issue as well. I've also rephrased the sentences about the child custody issue to hopefully rectify any breakup of chronology (as mentioned above). Ping me if you want to discuss this further, but please feel free to WP:BEBOLD and do whatever you want. I won't mind. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  kobe bryant tweets