This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article was created or improved at an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon in 2014.ArtAndFeminismWikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminismTemplate:ArtAndFeminism articleArtAndFeminism articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I originally revised the criticism section because I felt it was unbalanced. You included 7 harsh criticisms all from the same source. Richard Speer hates the piece. We get it! No need to quote every one of his put-downs from the entire article–see Neutral point of view: Balance. Also, you do not have to put the citation after every sentence–see Needless repetition. Citing the Willamette Week article once at the end of the paragraph is sufficient. You also said, "feel free to add additional criticism" but then blithely removed the one positive criticism I did add.
I returned the original content and kept the newly-added content. I removed one inline citation, but really one should be provided after a direct quote. ---Another Believer(Talk)14:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Can we discuss here instead of going back and forth on article? I am really happy someone else is interested in this section, I just don't see the need to eliminate content from the critical reception section. Your seem to prefer the 'less is more' approach, while, I prefer the 'more is more' perspective. Thanks for your work on this article -- let's find a compromise, please. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you do not see that the long list of snarky criticisms–all from one source–is excessive, I have failed to make my case. I am not going to change it again. I must say, you did a bang-up job on the rest of the article. Must visit Portland some time to see why Speer hates the work so much. They look very nice to me.--Foobarnix (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply