Talk:1-54/GA2

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

Reviewer: Swpb (talk · contribs) 18:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

— swpb T 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the review! I don't think it would serve the (relatively short) article by subsectioning the History. I considered splitting out a section on 1:54 NY but it didn't make sense in the overall history, so best to cover it in a single paragraph and continue along the general historical trajectory of the fair. I think the article is balanced for neutrality, especially given the sources. The fair's founder is a fine source for their curatorial practices and organizational history, especially when there is no source that suggest anything to the contrary. Appreciate the other comments and believe I have addressed them, if you'll have a look. Thanks again for your time! czar  19:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that my comments have been addressed, in terms of the necessary changes being made to the article. I won't make a stand on the formatting, but I do believe the remaining 2b and 4 issues require changes. If you don't agree, I can close the review so you can renominate the article and wait for another reviewer. — swpb T 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I changed the ones that I agree warranted changing (which were most of your suggestions), and I explained why I didn't change the two statements (in #4) where I disagree. I think it makes for sloppy prose to provide attribution of statements when the attribution isn't necessary, and even if you think the clarifications make for better prose, I don't see how the neutrality is compromised with those two sentences remaining the way they are, especially for the purposes of the GA criteria. czar  19:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ... you failed the article over two sentences? Please restore the review and request a "2ndopinion" instead. If another editor agrees, I'll make the change. czar  13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion

 * I agree with the point "African politics did not impede the selection process". That may be true, but it's coming from a biased source. I suggest you find some way of acknowledging that the opinion may be biased that makes it clear to the reader, or find an alternative neutral source providing the same opinion. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "organizers ask themselves 'what is necessary, what can be achieved, how [to] do something different'". This is a statement from the fair's founder., and as such can be taken as a fair comment on the organizers' motivation. I do not consider it necessary to change this providing the fair's founder is one of the organizers. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The first quote wasn't meant to be so declarative, as it is when separated from the second clause about visas. Rephrased to be truer to the source czar  00:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather different in scope, and now a neutral statement.
 * There is an ambiguous link to art fair in the lead.
 * Is there anything else you need an opinion on? Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . I believe the outstanding items have been satisfactorily modified. As you basically did all the work of the review, I invite you to comment and choose whether to pass or fail the article. I have no reason to dispute the quality of your review besides the items for which a second opinion was requested, as the nominator seems satisfied. If you fail it I will feel obliged to take up the review, and unless I find something unexpected, it will pass. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . Seeing the changes, I will not stop you from passing the article. The horrible taste in my mouth disinclines me to do it myself. — swpb T 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, and will deal with the formalities. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)