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]

 * 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)
 * 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]
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)