Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTarantula (talk · contribs) 03:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! I'll be reviewing this article, but this one will take a bit longer because at the moment, I have an overwhelming amount of homework I need to finish. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 03:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I can't thank you enough for reviewing my nominations. Don't worry, take your time. Skyshifter ^talk 12:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've been thinking about blocking myself because it's kind of getting in the way of finishing my homework. I address this because I don't have time in my day to review this article. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTarantula: I'm fine with waiting, but if you think you can't finish it, I can ask for another reviewer. Up to you though. Skyshifter ^talk 14:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask another reviewer. Skyshifter ^talk 01:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead; I've completely lost interest in this. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Not the GA nominator, but don't worry about it. I applaud your efforts for trying to help, and life should always take priority, especially education. I'm not going to review this for similar time-based reasons, but I remember proofreading this a while ago and being impressed with the detail and contextualisation of the event. Electricmaster (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2023 (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.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable; no edit wars have occured at the time of this review.
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.	The first image, Will Smith slapping Chris Rock, has a fair use rationale. The three celebrity images below it come from Flickr under a CC Attribution 2.0 license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images provide sufficient context and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Important comments / concerns

• The image of Smith slapping Rock is used twice: in the infobox and at the photograph section. Remove the second instance of Smith slapping Rock.
  • Removed. Skyshifter ^talk 21:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• ...with what appeared to be an open palm strike... - remove "what appeared to be"; it indicates uncertainty and is similar to a weasel word
  • Removed Skyshifter ^talk 14:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• but completed his presentation without further interruption. -> "but continued his presentation"
  • Fixed Skyshifter ^talk 14:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the relatively incomplete status of this review, and the withdrawal of the reviewer, I am closing this GAN as a failure on technical grounds and restoring the original nomination to better attract a fresh reviewer. CMD (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Move transcript to Wikiquote

Per WP:NPS and WP:LONGQUOTE I think it is surerfulous to include the verbatim transcripts of their verbal interaction in this article. We are WP:NOTNEWS, and this text should just be in Wikiquote which is more appropriate for this dialogue. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a reader could fully understand the incident without seeing all the dialogue. No objection to adding it to Wikiquote , of course. Feoffer (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes. I will definitely review this nomination. Good to meet you, User:Skyshifter. You have a little bit of work ahead of you. :-) Prhartcom (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In my first ten minutes of review, the sources are in good shape. I will now give them a thorough examination (which I am sure you have already done).

The article is in pretty good shape. It has very obviously been written by many Wikipedians, as you said. Let's see if we can make a few improvements to make it one cohesive, well-written work.

Skyshifter, I notice you yourself have never contributed to the article. Although you have participated in discussions about the article. This is grounds for Quick Fail. Yet, you are here? Prhartcom (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I've just seen your comments. Like I said in the nomination, many editors have edited the article, so there wasn't any specific one that I could ask for authorization to nominate it to GAN. However, I've opened a peer review for it and previously asked in the article's talk page if I could nominate it to GAN (and was ignored), so it should be fine. Skyshiftertalk 02:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's okay with me. Let's get to work. To be well-written, this article needs to be able to be one, single joy to read. It needs to start at the beginning and sequentially take the reader through the events of this story. Each section should have a good opening sentence and a good closing sentence. Since many editors contributed content, we really should change all the repetitive sentences "On On April 21 ..." to actual prose. We want people to read to the end of the article; readers should never have to stumble through any writing that would make them lose interest in the article.

I'll provide more specific notes next, but hopefully I am already helping to identify what improvements should be done to the article. It's nearly there, don't worry! Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(User:Feoffer, who must actually be the nominator, then began responding to the review, below.)

Background

This section is pretty good, as it lays the background and introduces what is about to happen. No way, though, should it open with the words "After the ceremony ..." (move this whole paragraph somewhere else). My suggestion is to write a new opening sentence in your own words that opens the article and summarizes the state of things that led up to that night. Then these three paragraphs could follow in their entirety, as each one introduces each main character. The opening sentence here needs to start at the beginning. Who are these people? We should probably mention Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith had been married since December 31, 1997. Let's move the "I wasn't invited" sentence to close this section, as it sets us picturing Rock giving his opening monologue of that fateful night.

Incident

Really good. No notes yet. I got chills.

Aftermath

It could really use a good opening sentence in your own words. First three paragraphs are good writing. I think they could even be given a subsection title, as these events all happened that night. Starting in the fourth paragraph, "On April 21, 2022 ..." we need some touch up writing. Really, all the text starting here up to the public apology subsection could be one big paragraph with a new subsection title, then rewrite that paragraph; it would be 90% of the same text as before, but we need your help to write some compelling 10%: A good opening sentence here, keep all the middle maybe the same, then tie it all up with an ending sentence. The public apology subsection writing is good; it would then be just another subsection. The new opening sentence is meant to introduce, not summarize; so it should not mention a future event. Let's not even have any sentences before the first subsection, but let's fix the opening sentence of the first subsection. Something like, "After the incident, Smith continued to participate in the ceremony and subsequent celebrations. Some in attendance were confused that no actions were taken [if there is a source for this!]. Within forty minutes, Smith was presented ..." Keep the events presented sequentially and the story flowing. Please fix the sentence "On April 21, 2022 ..." We really want to minimize these "On July 4, 1776 ..." sentences; we prefer to read actual prose. We need a well-written sentence to close the section, something that really strikes a chord, maybe stating this Netflix decision or whatever was the first consequence for Smith. Prhartcom (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Tremendous improvements! Such great work! You are getting it!

Everything up to the Comical responses section is done. Love that sub heading.

"On May 4, 2022, Dave Chappelle" perhaps instead: "Five weeks after the incident, Dave Chappelle ..."

"On November 29, 2022, Smith appeared as a guest on The Daily Show" perhaps instead: "Smith appeared as a guest on the November 29, 2022 episode of The Daily Show ..."

"Kimmel would also joke ..." In my opinion, this goes way off track, bringing up heavy off-the-subject topics. This sentence should be deleted. Then continue with the sentence about Rock's Netflix special.

"Following public backlash, Smith issued a formal apology" We need to know when, i.e. "Following public backlash, Smith issued a formal apology the next day."

"On July 29, 2022, Smith posted a YouTube video" perhaps instead: "Smith posted a YouTube video on July 29 ..."

"On March 29, Smith initiated a six-minute Zoom call" perhaps instead: "The following day, Smith initiated a six-minute Zoom call ..."

"The Board of Governors were not aware of the conversation" This sounds like it needs to be emphasized; perhaps instead: "Unfortunately, the Board of Governors were not aware of the conversation ..."

"One of the participants" This could possibly be attached to the previous sentence with a semicolon.

"On March 30, the Academy initiated disciplinary proceedings against Smith" perhaps instead: "The Academy initiated disciplinary proceedings against Smith on March 30 ..."

Maybe after the last sentence "for sexual crimes", add a sentence to bring it back around, i.e. "Smith would be the sixth expulsion since the creation of the Academy."

"On April 1, 2022, Smith preemptively resigned" perhaps instead: "Smith preemptively resigned from the Academy on April 1, 2022. AMPAS had told him ..."

The rest of the Aftermath section is brilliant. More later. Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Rock made numerous jokes about the incident and Smith." Is this a good closing sentence? It sounds like this moment should be emphasized. Perhaps instead: "Addressing the issue seriously for the first time, Rock made numerous jokes ..."

This article is on its way. Prhartcom (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I just realized the Comical responses subsection should be moved away to allow the story to flow sequentially. Hopefully it can be moved lower in this same section, but there is a Comedians subsection later in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

I read it and it flowed well; nothing stood out. No notes. The Weekend Update was a great way to end the section. Prhartcom (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Anthony Hopkins paragraph could be moved to the Initial Response subsection since this happened that night.

Maybe dropping the portion of the quote "which is good" would make the quote even stronger.

So the Weekend Update sentence belongs in Views on criminality?

More later. Prhartcom (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"[T]hat ..." I wouldn't think this bracket is necessary if you're just capitalizing a letter. "That ..." should be fine.

The Comedians section is starting to be brilliant now. Except this nice opening sentence should be moved somewhere better: "The incident provided fodder for on-stage comedians" because we were already talking about that.

And the two sentences about Jimmy Kimmel now should be moved out of this closing paragraph, that is really only about Rock and Smith.

"Chris Rock joined him onstage" perhaps instead "Chris Rock suddenly joined him onstage ..." to emphasize this moment was unexpected.

Analysis

"University of Southern California professor ..." this paragraph is still talking about the same thing as the previous paragraph, so don't start a new paragraph.

"unlikely to have happened, and Littlefeather had no way of witnessing this take place." perhaps instead "unlikely to have happened, as Littlefeather had no way of witnessing this."

Section title "Comparisons with past incidents" I expected to be about Smith's past incidents, but it was about incidents of others (from the past). If you can think of a fix for this, go for it.

Smith film delayed
"it was announced ..." perhaps instead "it had been announced ..."

I have re-read the article and the rest seems fine. Great improvements. Prhartcom (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

General

More later. Prhartcom (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I've taken a first stab at implementing your feedback, see what you think! Feoffer (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, hello Feoffer, good to meet you. I see you also have never contributed to the article. You have been involved in some discussions since nearly the beginning.

I see your improvements, this is coming along! These are good improvements. Okay, I must keep reviewing it. Remember, I think we generally have only one thing to accomplish during this review: Improve the writing of this this pretty well copy-edited article by making it one, cohesive article that presents the story sequentially and entertainingly, with compelling opening and closing sentences written in your own words, keeping us hanging on the edge of our seat, with no awkward sentences to stumble through. More later. Prhartcom (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'm implemented your proposed changes! Thanks for the improvements. Feoffer (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"In the first of many consequences for Smith ..." is a great example of how to end a section in a compelling way. Prhartcom (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! I should say, I usually get negative feedback when I write "compelling" text by users who feel it violates encyclopedic tone. You've been with us since the beginning, I see, so it's special compliment coming from you. Feoffer (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a fine line. They're right; the encyclopedic voice is what we must have. And you and I are right; it is possible to add a few words here and there that end up creating compelling writing that is a joy to read. Don't ever let your encyclopedic writing be boring! Prhartcom (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

So the Weekend Update sentence belongs in Views on criminality? I'm thinking yes? It's a specific pointed commentary on the process and decision not to arrest, whereas the other comedic responses are more generic fodder for laughs. Feoffer (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Good enough for me, and is a great way to end this serious section.

Thanks for the quick actions during this review. I keep re-reading the article looking for things, but this article was so well copy edited to begin with (makes your job easier). I think your fixes during this GA review have improved the sequence of the information and the rhythm of the presented prose and the overall engrossed, entertained feeling it gives us while reading. This article is now well written.

Please allow me another day to verify sources and check the other criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'm caught up with your changes, all great. Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

"Chris Rock insisted that charges not be filed against Will Smith" (a note in the Infobox). The only note in the article was probably added by someone who hadn't read the article, as as this is stated later in the Initial response subsection ("Rock repeatedly declined to press charges")(By the way, where it says that, you may as well move the note's reference number 1 CNN here to join reference number 41 Deadline Hollywood.

"and was banned from attending AMPAS-related events for ten years, effective April 8." perhaps instead drop the April 8, and maybe change "and was banned" to ""and was then banned".

Sources

Feoffer, I was reading the sources and realized this article does not mention that in October 2023, Pinkett Smith revealed that she and Smith have been separated since 2016. I found this fact in reference number 3, Oprah Mag.

See reference number 3; it is pointing to an article with a different title than what is stated in the reference.

Same with Cosmopolitan reference number 6; the article title is different from the one referenced here.

Same with USA Today reference number 85. One celebrity's name was swapped for another one. Maybe the source changed the title later.

"Celebrities who sympathized with Smith include": None of the four articles referenced in this sentence mention the celebrities Jeremy Clarkson, Bradley Cooper, Jamie Foxx, Tyrese Gibson, Kevin Hart, Jameela Jamil, Leslie Odom Jr., or Jon Voight. Pretty shocking BLP violation. Sources must be found for each of these names or delete them all. Rosie O'Donnell source is missing from the next sentence. I found a Clarkson source after a quick Internet search; perhaps the others can be found as well.

I verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images. Prhartcom (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're good. Added a section on the Pinkett Smith memoir that addresses separation, tweaked the changed refs to default to the archival versions instead, added refs for the celebs where appropriate -- for Cooper, Foxx, and Odom, I found quotes that did suggest generic sympathy but not really "support" so I errored on the side of caution and cut them. I want to thank you so much for spotting this! Feoffer (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Good work. We're done! Congratulations! Prhartcom (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Good job to you and Feoffer. The high quality of this article was not lost on me while reading it. I'm also glad I was able to make some very minor contributions to help tighten it up. This article is a classic case of teamwork. Cheers! Electricmaster (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·