Wikipedia:Peer review/NEA Four/archive1

NEA Four

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first time writing a wikipedia article (though I am a frequent reader). I think that I am on the right track by listing the history of the peer review process since the questioning and politicizing of that process is what led to the defunding of the artists, but before I continue I'd like to get some feedback on the language of the paragraph I added. I think that this may work better as a timeline or list.

Thanks, Croussos (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Aladdin Sane

First, I'd like to thank you for improving this topic. As a reader, I feel it is an important subject.

Here are some things I see as an editor: First, the added references are much appreciated, and I hope you can keep going in that direction. Somehow, at the end of the day, the references take on an importance beyond the content.

Next, I disagree that a time-line or a list will be correct for this article in the long run. Well-cited prose is the right direction here.

I think that your history paragraph should be split up in to two or more paras (that's a personal opinion: I drift off as a reader when there's no paragraph breaks, and I know I'm not the only one).

Also, consider the overall structure of the article when you are (will be) done; try to envision it as you work. This article is not important just to the Arts, but also to Law, Politics, and History.

Therefore, I'd consider a structure somewhat like this, four main sections: "History of the peer review process within the NEA", "Lead up to the controversy", "Controversy", and "Aftermath and legacy". (Please don't add sections until you have a bit of content for them, though.)

Both as an editor, and a reader, I have a strong preference for the forward chronological style, when I can have it. So far, the article lacks that...and it looks a bit odd to me.

Thinking about the structure may help you better research the references we need for this article.

Since you're edit mode, do consider WP:MOS (though not as highly as adding properly sourced information). I may go in and make a few obvious corrections myself (that's convenient about group editing; no stress if you mess up on style). As I understand it, you seem to be an Arts student, but some of us editors get finicky about stuff like it's versus its, you know? (Man, I just laugh at myself about it, as a volunteer I get to indulge my perfectionism.)

Again, my gratitude for what you have added so far. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from User:Aladdin Sane

Per the reviewee's request, I've added additional comments on the concept of chronology in articles at Talk:NEA Four#Forward chronological style?, if anyone's interested. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mcraab123 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your edits. You have really improved this article.

Your lead section gives a clear overview. In the body of the article, you expand upon the topics you introduce in the lead. That's great.

I agree with Aladdin Sane's observation that the references are arguably more important than the article itself. As a reader, I often look at the references first. In addition to the References, maybe consider the hyperlink citations to other Wikipedia articles, too. The more information you can cite, the better.

I agree with your choice to write the story in prose rather than make the body of the article a time-line. The time-line in the External links gives readers the option to see the information broken down differently.

I think Aladdin Sane's suggestions to help you break up the text are very helpful. I envision the peer review section broken down into four categories as well: an outline of the system; challenges to that system; outcome; and legacy. I am curious about the legacy of the Supreme Court decision. Expansion on that section might give you more information for the See Also section, and a need for more sources and citations.

The image you used gave me a great sense of the time period.

I wish you luck as you move forward with your edits! Mcraab123 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

====Comments from MariselaGrajedaGonzalez (talk)

I agree with a lot of Marni's comments. I too, think that the prose format works because this is sort of a retelling of an "event". As a reader I was wondering about the controversial nature of the work of the other three artists, as only John Fleck's toilet prop is mentioned. Again I agree with Marni and Aladdin re: references, because this was an event there was likely a good deal of coverage of the event at the time of the event, so linking to those for a more in depth look is a good idea. Because as far as having created an article about "The NEA 4" that is basically done here. The only other way to help the reader would be to send them to the appropriate backround, support, interest sites/pages. I hope that make sense. Good work.

Comments by MJ94

Lede

Remove the quotations around "NEA Four".
I wouldn't list the names of the performers right away. Perhaps "The NEA Four was a group of performance artists consisting of..." and then listing their names would be more appropriate? Of course, it doesn't need to be worded exactly like that, but it merely a suggestion.
"John Fleck was vetoed for a performance comedy with a toilet prop." Maybe say why the other three grants were vetoed?
I suggest rewording the last sentence as it reads a little choppily.

Lead up to the controversy

Comma after "1989".
Can you use a different phrase than "drew controversy to"?
"The NEA has used..." → Peer review panels have been used..."
"Nancy Hanks (the next chairperson appointed by Regan in 1969) expanded panels and created a list of three criteria: appointments must be merit based; appointees must serve the panel as individuals, and may not make decisions based on any particular interest group, institution or viewpoint; the panels must be insulated from external pressures." Three criteria for what, exactly? Also, is "Regan" a typo?
"Once adopted this split panel allowed for more review panelists to be engaged who represented more diverse art practices." Comma after "adopted".
"Also in 1979 a House report found that the NEA was failing to establish a coherent system of review and had not established a uniform system of review." Remove "also".
"The task force reported that the agencies were basically sound and in need of only minor improvements." Remove "basically".
"Frank Hodsoll (chairperson from 1981–89) and John Frohnmayer (chairperson from 1989–92 during the heart of the NEA Four controversy) both had to fight such political pressure to retain the peer review model as well as their own roles within the NEA." While the meaning can be assumed, it may be good to specify chairperson of what exactly.

I think you have put a good amount of effort into this article; however, it does seem to be a bit short. In addition, I think the article is very much in need of copy editing. If you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. MJ94 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]