Talk:Bouvier Affair

Neutrality and clarity
I applaud the user for pulling together an article on this fascinating (and ongoing) art world imbroglio, but the content as written has issues. For one, structurally, the article ping-pongs around, often skipping over or needlessly repeating important information. The "affair" itself is variously referred to as taking or having taken place, even before the relevant actions have occurred, or even been introduced (e.g. "[events] thrust the affair firmly into the spotlight" –– but the affair is not a static object that exists before it's occurred, or before media attention has both formed & christened it). The chronological issues could largely be improved by lightly reorganizing & breaking up the long, middle section into various sub-sections. Tenses switch often, and names are alternately used too much or not enough, to the point of subject confusion. The article's lead seems to suggest that the affair is entirely about one thing, rather than a series of interrelated events –– so taken on its own, it's misleading and overly narrow.

Additionally, and more seriously, the writer engages in too much speculation. While well-sourced, the article should not suggest that one of the principal players "might have organized the arrest" of another; if this represents a notable or widely-held conjecture, it should attribute these speculations properly, rather than asserting or ruminating on them authoritatively. But one gets the sense (perhaps unfounded) that the writer is close to his or her subject, and has an opinion on what are, at this point, all just allegations.

Totally fascinating stuff, and kudos to the writer for doing such a good job collecting the details and sourcing them healthily. I just think the flow and tone still need a little work. Microfamous (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Article clean up
Hello everyone,

I took a quick look over this page and agree with the assessment that its neutrality can be disputed. I will start cleaning up the page to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards, especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Will also work on coherence and clarity. Soulman78 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE
Finished fixing the article as much as I could, but feel free to take a look. Unless thre are any objections, I think the tag can be removed. Cheers, Soulman78 (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A big, belated thank you for all the work you put in on the article! It's much, much better now. Thank you for undertaking what I only ever really ranted about, but did nothing to myself address. Microfamous (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Template
I read through the page and according to my assessment the template is no longer needed as the article seems well sourced and balanced. I have removed the template, but let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks Count of Monte Wiki (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)