Can I ask, does a critique need to be good in the subject matter that he is doing a critique on?
For more consideration, I refer to this post by another moderator on another issue which I think sums up this concept pretty well. Whilst the analogy may not be 100% relevant, the general idea is there. I think it might be fallacious to stipulate that a critique must achieve a standard which excels the person or work he is criticising.
Originally Posted by StreetShooter