Talk:Angela Su

Tone of "Artwork (by exhibition)" section
I've tagged that section for tone, as the contents don't come across in the neutral tone one would expect from an encyclopedia. The first half of the article is fine: a description of the artist and a list of works. But this section reads more like promotional material for an exhibition, or a review of such in an art connoisseur's magazine. Examples include open-ended rhetorical questions asked of the reader (What will happen if the animals can speak for themselves and tell the world about their true thinking? What can human learn from animals if they can talk with animals and destroy the communication barrier?), vague non-committal words (The narrative in the tattoos and video could be seen as a collage created by the artist.), and lots of generally promotional descriptions and stating fact in Wikipedia's voice that are, as with most artistic impressions, highly subjective (...science and visual art are combined in a new way. It is used to create innovative images..., or It tries to let the audiences to think about the extreme effects caused by over relying on technology).

Lastly, the sections on the various exhibits are closely paraphrased from the artist's own blog, and reviews of those exhibitions. I would invite to read WP:WBA which talks about these sorts of pitfalls, and to discuss those sections and how to improve them. In addition, the username implies a connection to the artist, so I also encourage them to read WP:COI which describes how connected editors should edit to avoid these exact sorts of issues. I'm glad to engage in any discourse here or on any talk page. Thanks! Crow Caw  16:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I have already changed some of the wordings and sentences of the paragraph in order to solve the problems in tone. 144.214.107.216 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Danise Leung

Tone of article, style, formatting
Nothing has been done to address the concerns above. An editor recently removed the templates about the problems in the article, but does not appear to have done much to improve things. I've re-adding the tone template and added the resume tag -- the structure and style of writing is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The other tags concerning orphaned articles and conflict of interest I won't re-add.  freshacconci  (✉) 19:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)