Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Graffiti/archive1

Graffiti

previous nomination discussion

renomination, I feel this article has addressed the previous concerns. I look forward to seeing what else is objected to.  ALKIVAR™ 07:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but what do the non-legible characters under the Germany external link mean? RickK 07:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

That extremely bizzarre set of characters is the artists name! I know I dont get it either.  ALKIVAR™ 08:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support (the article, not graffiti in general <gr>). Well-written, good lead, and nice images. Vaoverland 08:30, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support I like this a lot, and the images are great. I'd like to see no red links, because they make the page look untidy, but that's just a personal quirk. SlimVirgin 08:38, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Working on it but I just dont have enough background on some of them to put even a stub up.  ALKIVAR™ 23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I can't find my previous objections in writing, but it looks like they've been adressed. Nice pics, and comprehensive writing. Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The lead section could be touched up, I'd like to see a tad more on the negative social consequences side of things, and it'd be nice to find a better picture for the radical/political section. That said, these are all minor, and all my major objections from last time have been addressed. Ambi 11:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did add quite a bit to the legality section. What exactly would you like to see address on the negative social aspects?  ALKIVAR™ 23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object Where are the references? Is that what the non-standard section title "Resources" (which looks more like a further reading section to me). Also, an article this size really needs a much longer lead section - two short paragraphs simply will not do. More of the article needs to be summarized there (think of the lead as a concise/desk reference encyclopedia article in its own right; would what is there be OK all by itself?). --mav 18:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A great majority of the content I've added comes from first hand personal experience (all of the Washington DC and most of the NYC references) having been a graffiti artist for the past 12 years. The rest of it comes mostly from the external links and from several of the books/dvds listed as "resources" a section label I do not personally like. Some content does come from other external sources but they are linked within the body of the article itself such as the Safety issues  ALKIVAR™ 23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is a bit unfortunate since Wikipedia is not a primary source. References are needed so that others can check the accuracy of the article. Without them, the article could simply be made-up (not saying that is the case here but since I know very little about this I have no way of knowing). Listing references that can be used to confirm the information in the article will solve this probelm. --mav 07:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the US printed/filmed "resources" are all things i've seen/used. And anything else has links in the text to back it up, I cant think of any references that arent already there to back up the text. I really consider this a non issue if you actually bother to check the links, or open any of the books listed.  ALKIVAR™ 07:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a very important issue because a reader of the article will not necessarily be able to read your mind. If there are no clear references, then this nomination fails by default. If you cared to read the featured article criteria, you would know that. --mav 07:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you only briefly skimmed that to quote from it "Include references by extensive use of inline references" which this article CLEARLY DOES. If there was even a remote factual discrepancy in this article PERHAPS then it might matter. As it currently stands the references section contains probably 3 or 4 works that support each point.  ALKIVAR™ 01:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I don't think the "Neo-Nazi defacement of a Jewish cemetery in France" photo can be considered fair use; off the top of my head news agency pictures generally cannot. Also, the arrangement of pictures towards the intro part looks somewhat weird (big white space), but that's to taste and does not have to be changed. JuntungWu 11:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry your wrong, it does qualify as fair use. Objection is therefore invalid.  ALKIVAR™ 03:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Qualifying on what grounds? Reuters is actively hunting copyright violations right now link and Wikipedia is high profile enough to catch attention. I am slightly worried that they may pick on Wikipedia but I admit to being paranoid about copyright due to the nature of my job. Anyway the description does not have the "fair use rationale" requirement under Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale so fill it in and I'll change my vote to support instead since I actually quite like the article. --JuntungWu 04:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Relax, m:Avoid copyright paranoia, it is a legitimate fair use claim, and unless your a lawyer representing wiki you really shouldnt be worrying over whether something is fair use or not. We've had blatant copyright theft labelled fairuse in the past, and we (the {{PUI}} regulars) do a damn good job of finding it. As for the wierd big white space I dont have a freaking clue what your talking about, I certainly dont see it.  ALKIVAR™ 06:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My day to day job involves handling copyright issues so I may indeed be paranoid. Okay. Strong support then. By the way I was referring to the area next to the table of contents. --JuntungWu 09:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh that white space always happens, its just more noticeable on longer articles with bigger TOC's.  ALKIVAR™ 09:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object. "References and additional resources" is entirely ambiguous as to which were used as actual references to verify or add material to the article, and which are just made available to the interested reader for more information than is in the article. That could mean there is only one actual reference, which would be inadequate. Otherwise looks like an excellent article and I would support. - Taxman 14:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think people are being to harsh on the old referencing frount. If you check out the resentlly featured articles none of them get any were never ref'ing every fact. Most just have a few ref's at bottom of page. For example check out the refencing for recently featured article Battle of Hampton Roads, their are less ref's here then on graffiti page!--JK the unwise 19:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think this article's become quite good. GTBacchus 01:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Comments

• comment - There is brief mention in the article about tags on railroad freight equipment, but little else about them except for the section on New York subways. I've uploaded an image that would be suitable to illustrate railroad tags and linked it on the article's talk page. slambo 11:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that, I went looking but didnt want to put yet another "fair use" image in there, we need stuff that could conceivably make it to a printed edition. I will try to flesh out a little more on rail graf (a subject of which I have first hand experience heh)  ALKIVAR™ 23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a couple small paragraphs on freight train graf, I didnt want to go into depth because the page is already 38k. But if there is something you want to add, or something you want ME to add, feel free to say so here :)  ALKIVAR™ 02:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Note: I glanced at the article and the capitalization of Graffiti seems inconsistant. I think it probably should be lower case so all the headings and text should be changed. BrokenSegue 03:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization has been fixed, thanks for pointing that out :)  ALKIVAR™ 03:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

a few quick comments

• who are these graffiti historians?
• "If one's definition of graffiti is broad enough," - this sounds strained and upsets the flow when reading
• "Many times in history graffiti were used as form of fight with opponents" - i'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.
• i suggest using "latter-day saints" instead of "Mormons". the latter is more of a nickname, the former is official. eg "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"
• and that's about as far as I got before I was completely bored

--Alterego 02:14, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

To your first question I dont understand your context? The first two sentances I did not write. However I disagree with the assessment of the first quotation, it does not feel strained to me based in its context. Your second quote to me seems horribly written by a non native english speaker and has been removed. As for the third point, I am responsible for this particular paragraph. In the DC area its known as the "Mormon Temple" period. It is never referred to as anything else not even by the Mormons themselves. You should also note the newsletter which is referenced in the same sentance is titled "Mormon News".  ALKIVAR™ 04:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I simply said that they are officially latter-day saints, and not "Mormons". the latter is a nickname. --Alterego 05:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, I was merely backing up my wording of the subject for the powers that be who decide upon the fate of the FAC's :)  ALKIVAR™ 06:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)