Template talk:Arts criticism navigation

Hello: in defence of the template and the articles

OK, I feel there's some risk here that this template and, indeed, some of the articles I have created for it might come in for a hard time. For that reason I wish to state what my intention was and is in creating the template and the articles.

Firstly, I feel that all the criticism articles have a place in Wikipedia. Critics of all art forms have tremendous power through their ability to bring works to a wider audience and, indeed, to diminish that audience by giving it a poor review.

I feel each article can be fleshed out with the following:

• An exploration of the sorts of questions critics ask themselves when viewing a work (eg, what does a film critic look for that is common to all films he views? What does a fiction reviewer look for when reading a novel?... these will necessarily be quite basic in order to cover as broad a range within each field as possible).
• Some coverage of highly noted critics.
• Mention of particularly notable books and periodicals in the field of criticism discussed.
• Some external links where the reader can find examples of criticism.

There may be much more that can be added but that sounds like a good start to me.

As for the NavBox: I feel all of the articles make good bedfellows: many national newspapers will group those fields together when you navigate to their 'arts' portal and this seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing for them to have done. I contend that it is perfectly reasonable for us to do so too.

Thanks for listening --bodnotbod (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)