Talk:Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoes law placing Supreme Court under power of ruling party

I think this article is presentable as-is, but I'm at elbow length. My biggest concern is neutrality. It's not non-neutral to say that one protest had over 10,000 people and the other was just spectators. Is there anything else we need to add about Poland's political system to neither unduly indict nor go too easy on PiS? ("Ah yes, that was them in those Black Protests two years ago.") I'm going to let this sit for a while, but I invite anyone who wants to to hit the "review" button if they think it's ready. I don't want to let this sit too long or else we'll have to add what you-know-who has to say about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4333136 [Not ready]

Revision 4333136 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I've fully reviewed this article, and would be publishing it now but for one problem that, on careful consideration, I've concluded needs to be addressed first. There were three laws; the president said he'd veto two of them, and also said he'd sign the third. The protesters had a reaction to that, mentioned in at least one (maybe two?) of the sources. I didn't clearly see anything about the EU's reaction to the signing of the third, though I might have missed it. The only vestige of the third law here, afaics, is the mention of protest signs saying "3 X veto", which however is unexplained. I think this introduces significant bias-by-omission. There's no one "right" way to add the information; no one "right" choice of just how much to say about it, or just how prominent to make it; but omitting it leaves, I feel, a problematic gap in the reader's knowledge of the story, especially considering the length of this article. See the detailed history of edits during review. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4333136 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I've fully reviewed this article, and would be publishing it now but for one problem that, on careful consideration, I've concluded needs to be addressed first. There were three laws; the president said he'd veto two of them, and also said he'd sign the third. The protesters had a reaction to that, mentioned in at least one (maybe two?) of the sources. I didn't clearly see anything about the EU's reaction to the signing of the third, though I might have missed it. The only vestige of the third law here, afaics, is the mention of protest signs saying "3 X veto", which however is unexplained. I think this introduces significant bias-by-omission. There's no one "right" way to add the information; no one "right" choice of just how much to say about it, or just how prominent to make it; but omitting it leaves, I feel, a problematic gap in the reader's knowledge of the story, especially considering the length of this article. See the detailed history of edits during review. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@Pi zero: Okay, I gave it a one-liner because that's what I've got the time for right now. If you hit CTRL-F "local" in the most recent NY Times source, it'll take you right there. If you don't happen to have time to re-review this today, I'll check for updates.

I appreciate you going to the effort of posting on my talk page whenever you complete a review, but I've gotten into the habit of checking the collaboration pages of articles I'm working on in case anyone's commented, so only keep doing it if it actively helps your process. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: If you feel it's reviewable, remember to resubmit for review. --Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, just remembered now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4333433 [Passed]

Revision 4333433 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I feel we're kind of weak on coverage re the third bill, but I don't think it's a not-ready-able problem, just that we might have done better on that point. (This is a long enough article I guess my expectations for it are higher.) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4333433 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I feel we're kind of weak on coverage re the third bill, but I don't think it's a not-ready-able problem, just that we might have done better on that point. (This is a long enough article I guess my expectations for it are higher.) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Okay, I think I see what's going on. I wasn't trying to write an article about all three laws or to give them equal time. If I were writing an article about reforms to the New York City police department in the 1890s, I'd mention that there were four police commissioners at the same time and maybe give the other three guys' names, but most of the content would focus on Theodore Roosevelt. He was the one who did the most and the one who's best sourced. An article just about the overlooked three co-commissioners might be appropriate to do also, if only because it's a subject that the mainstream treatments tend to overlook, but it wouldn't be the same article. That would be "let's write an article about that also/instead." But it would necessarily not focus on police reform. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your analogy. Nor was I suggesting equal time. The larger the article, the more it ought to draw in relevant details/context, further and further out from the center of the story. That third law is part of the picture, connecting to the whole, and it seems to me that for the depth/level-of-detail this article goes into, the third-law aspect of the story is slightly under-covered. Not vastly under-covered (although a reporter could choose to cover it in significantly greater detail, at their option as you say), but somewhat under-covered because of the degree to which it ties in to other major themes involved. Our objective is to help the reader become informed about the story, and at this article size it seems to me desirable to do a bit better on that aspect. --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)