Talk:Nepenthes (sculpture)

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Sculpture

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

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal 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 is supported by the public art task force.

ArtAndFeminism

This article was created or improved at an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon in 2014.ArtAndFeminismWikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminismTemplate:ArtAndFeminism articleArtAndFeminism articles

Sources[edit]

--Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section[edit]

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 am reverting the revert and have added back my positive criticism and also added a new one. --Foobarnix (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]