Analysing good writing - thoughts from the bike ride.

https://makingamark.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/breach-of-rules-taylor-wessing-photographic-portrait-prize-2017.html

I have been thinking about critical writing recently, and have come across a brilliant example in the above blog post by Katherine Tyrrell. So I'm going to analyse what she does.  She is a retired senior civil servant and her writing shows her experience - I suspect she may have been something like a senior policy researcher, from her style and structure of argument.

Tyrrell  starts by describing her purpose for writing about art competitions - 3 reasons.  Then focuses on her 3rd reason - criticising the conduct of judging panels.  Sad but necessary.

Makes the point that confidence in competitions is undermined by allowing entries that breach the rules, and allowing said entries to win prizes!

Gives example image.

Quotes from Judging panel - their first sentence confirms the entry is outside the rules.

Notes that £7,000 of prize money (funded by entry fees) was awarded to the entry that was outside the criteria.

Notes need for (MPs) everyone to operate within the law and clear rules.

Quotes competition legislation, Gaming Act, contract law, Advertising Code of Conduct.

Quotes from competition rules.  Also quotes from entrant, who acknowledged her application is outside the terms and conditions - so no deceit on her part.

States Judging Panel only has titles and works, and no further information.  Therefore competition administrator should have removed ineligible works prior to judging panel.

Quotes rules "Judges decision final and no further correspondence will be entertained". States she is outside of the competition and therefore can comment outside the competition.

States Judges do not have the right to vary the rules of the competition (i.e. eligibility or otherwise) or that they can include ineligible exhibits or award prizes to them, outside of the rules.

Suggests changes to rules be checked by a lawyer.

Notes competition was sponsored by Law Firm!

Notes there was no-one acting as Guardian of the Rules (in HR we used to call it Custodian of the Policy)

Suggests artwork could have been displayed outside of the competition, but at the venue.

Suggests rejected entrants/prize winners might want to claim their money back due to breach of rules - (reminds readers of Weinstein, Spacey, and 2008 BBC breach of Broadcasters Code and refunds subsequent)

Quotes Advertising Standards Authority - legal, decent, honest, truthful etc.

Sums up by suggesting Compliance with the Rules, Guardian of the Rules role, plan for non-compliant entries.

Clarifies that entrant was not at fault - clear statement of non-compliance

Names the Judging panel(!)

Provides bibliography

Provides links for previous winners.

I thought it was a brilliant piece of writing.  Great structuring and clear narrative to a well reasoned outcome.