Talk:The Faith of Graffiti/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 22:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead
 * 81 photographs — The number of photographs should be mentioned in the body of the article as well.
 * Done.
 * twelve-thousand-word essay — Ditto.
 * I just removed this, since I could not find the original source for the specific word count.
 * the ... essay explored the political and artistic implications of graffiti — That's a pretty short summary of the work. Can it be expanded any in the lead?
 * Added a bit more. to the lead.
 * Anything worth adding to the lead about the work's reception?
 * Done. —Grlucas (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Background
 * Vandalism, theft, and murders were so prevalent that "Welcome to Fear City" safety pamphlets were distributed to tourists. — This is interesting, but lacks context. From the Gothamist article that the Guardian article links to, it is clear that this was really just a way of New York's finest trying to put pressure on the local government to avoid layoffs.
 * More context added.
 * Most New Yorkers and city officials shared Mayor John Lindsay's belief that graffiti was defacing their city — Too strong: the source says only "many, perhaps most, New Yorkers of the early 1970s shared Mayor Lindsay’s view of graffiti as 'a dirty shame'" (emphasis added).
 * Agreed. Fixed.
 * it had cost more than $300,000 per year to erase the graffiti. — "had cost", or "cost"? The NYT article is from 1971, which suggests the official was speaking about current costs. And given that he's from the MTA, is he talking about the city's costs, of only the MTA's costs of removing graffiti from subways, subway stations, and the like?
 * Yes, fixed.
 * Mayor Lindsay announced an anti-graffiti program — When?
 * Added.
 * In 1969, Norman Mailer unsuccessfully campaigned for the Democratic nomination for Mayor of New York City — Perhaps a brief introduction to Mailer is due here; what was he best known for at the time?
 * Added.
 * Mailer urged the audience to form a "guerrilla graffiti squad" to write the campaign slogan "No More Bullshit" throughout New York City. — Was this actually a serious campaign, or more a la Joe Exotic?
 * Indeed. Added nuance that is part of the source material.
 * fourth in the Democratic Primary — How many votes, and/or what percent?
 * Updated. -Dcb1986 (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After the tepid reception of his biography of Marilyn Monroe, — What year are we in? This is after his run for mayor?
 * 1973. Added.
 * his agent Scott Meredith was finally able to get him $50,000 for his work. — Why $15,000 more than what Mailer had agreed to?
 * Meredith was his agent. That was his job. —Grlucas (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Synopsis
 * This interview sheds light — Is this one interview with four people, or four interviews with one person each?
 * One interview with four people. -Dcb1986 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The "name" is subversive — What is the "name"? Their graffiti name (e.g., CAY 161 or JUNIOR 161), or something else?
 * Their tag, or graffiti name. Clarified.
 * Part 4 details a conversation between A-I and the outgoing mayor of New York, John Lindsay — Did Mailer actually interview him?
 * Yes, the entirety of part 4 is about their interview. —Grlucas (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Style
 * as seen in his non-traditional biographies such as The Executioner's Song, The Fight, and Marilyn: A Biography. — Anything that can be used as a cite?
 * Added sources.
 * This blending of the subjective and objective allowed for a more nuanced and complex narrative, engaging readers in subtle new ways. — I'm not sure what this means. Replace the words "narrative" and "readers," and you could almost have an airy-yet-meaningless description of wine.
 * Clarified? Rewritten at least.
 * Eliot Fremont-Smith — Who's that?
 * A critic. Removed.
 * Mailer's waning interest in the topic of graffiti despite its popularity in contemporary art circles. — Why was Mailer's interest waning? If Mailer (and contemporary art circles) had an opinion on graffiti before this book, that could stand mention in the "Background" section.
 * It wasn't. This was more of a commentary on Mailer's view of journalism. Corrected. —Grlucas (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Analysis
 * Mailer's admiration of graffiti artists — But wasn't his interest waning?
 * No, see above, last §.
 * Nonetheless, the essay is described as the first "epistemological legitimisation" of the art of graffiti." — By Lennon? If so, I'd say "Nonetheless, Lennon described the essay as..." Also, quotations need inline citations.
 * No, by Bonadio. Fixed.
 * and a connection to the beginnings of art and its connection with the human psyche. — Seems like a fragment.
 * Yeah, fixed.
 * In Existential Battles, Laura Adams — "In her book Existential Battles"?
 * Fixed. Dcb1986 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually think "book" is implied by the italics making "her book" redundant, but that's just me, I guess? —Grlucas (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Michael Cowan ... John Seelye — Who are they?
 * Literary critics.
 * The "I" is a Roman numeral one and "A" is for "Advertisement" suggesting A-I is an advertisement for Mailer himself. — Did Mailer actually say anything supporting this interpretation, or is it just a random idea that someone tossed out?
 * It's an allusion to Mailer's seminal work Advertisements for Myself. Clarified.
 * Mailer presented art as a series of trends not part of individual expression, and that these trends are not valued in American society. — Something's grammatically off with this sentence.
 * Rewritten.
 * Mailer, too, linked graffiti with contemporary art and its performativity. — What's the "too" doing in that sentence?
 * Gone.
 * The last paragraph here is quite confusing. It nonchalantly introduces the concept of "hip" in the first sentence, then only explains it in the second. Then, the third sentence introduces the "Hipster," which, it seems, is related to "hip" but perhaps distinct (or perhaps not). And just what is the importance of "hip"? "Cay 161 became an exemplar of hip within the graffiti community" seems to suggest that it is a recognized (valued?) trait, but that's only implied. Finally, the last sentence appears to be grammatically flawed (did Mailer do the defining, or Birzin? The way the sentence is structured, it would be Birzin), and confusing: Who is this Birzin, who is "Taki 183", and for that matter, has "the birth of the graffiti movement" been previously discussed?
 * This ¶ links Faith to Mailer's 1957 essay The White Negro through Birzin's dissertation. I tried to clarify, but it may need further work. —Grlucas (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Publication
 * The work appeared as a short essay in Esquire and as a book by Praeger Publishers. — At the same time?
 * Yes.
 * The project was conceived by Lawrence Schiller with photographs by Jon Naar and design by Mervyn Kurlansky. — This is already discussed in "Background".
 * Quite right. Removed from background §.
 * The book was also published in London — When?
 * Added. -Dcb1986 (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How long was the book? I'm a bit confused by why this article variously terms it a book and an essay.
 * It was both. Advice for clarification? —Grlucas (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception
 * The work was considered controversial — Who considered it controversial?
 * Initial reviewers, critics, and readers. Dearborn, who is cited, is general, too.
 * "Who better than the author of Advertisements for Myself to analyze calligraphic assertions of personal glory?" — Whose words?
 * Fixed.
 * However, glorification is well within Mailer's usual writing style ... Mailer seems to ... consider graffiti as an "indigenous art form" to be celebrated. — This starts off by saying glorification was part of Mailer's style, but then ends up saying he indeed thought graffiti artists should be glorified.
 * Fixed, but it may need further help.
 * Though he acknowledges the social power of graffiti, Ian Brunskill writes — Is "he" Mailer, or Brunskill?
 * Clarified.
 * [The essay] nonetheless set the terms in which graffiti has been written about ever since. However, Brunskill wrote, Mailer was committed to defending graffiti as an art form and supporting the movements artist as revolutionaries. — I'm not sure I follow. How does the second sentence relate to the first?
 * Fixed. —Grlucas (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References
 * 6–7, 9: These don't need retrieval dates. You're citing the underlying works—printed newspapers that will not change depending on the date they are accessed—so they don't serve a purpose.
 * Fixed. -Dcb1986 (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, there's some inconsistency in date formats: both "YYYY-MM-DD" and "Month Day, Year" are used. I'd suggest using the latter uniformly, but either way, only one should be used.
 * Corrected. —Grlucas (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography
 * Adams 1976: What's "Ohio UP"?
 * Added (and location). --Usernameunique (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, the ISBNs could be hyphenated.
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, there's some inconsistency in date formats.
 * Fixed.
 * Austin 2001 is included in the bibliography, but never cited to in the article.
 * That's why I called the § Bibliography rather than "Works Cited." It gives more room for refs that might be valuable but were not necessarily used in the article.
 * Baker 2015: Any reason this is included in the bibliography rather than in the references, where other web-based pieces are?
 * The logic here is that since we used shortened footnotes, references with authors use sfn, those that do not use a standard tag.
 * Beardsley 1975: The DOI is redundant, since it links to JSTOR. Also, the "– via JSTOR" isn't strictly speaking needed, since "JSTOR 428378" gives that away."
 * Fixed. -Dcb1986 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Brooks 1997: Missing publisher location.
 * Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Brunskill 2013: Any reason this one, but not other web magazine pieces, lacks a retrieval date?
 * Nope. Added.
 * Lennon 1977: Same comment re "– via JSTOR".
 * Fixed. -Dcb1986 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * McKinley 2017: I'd spell out "University".
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Mosser 2009: Is there an ISSN or similar identifier for the publication that you could add?
 * Yes. Added.
 * Perlmutter 1972, Roberts 2007, & Robins 1974: Any reason these are in the bibliography, rather than in the references, where other NYT pieces are?
 * See Baker above.
 * Richardson 1969: Where was this published (what magazine, etc.)?
 * Added.
 * Seelye 1974: Is there an ISSN or similar identifier for the publication that you could add?
 * Added. —Grlucas (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thompson 2009: The OCLC isn't really needed in addition to the ISBN.
 * Fixed. -Dcb1986 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall
 * Interesting article, . Thoughts above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As this article appears to have been created and nominated as part of a now-finished class project—and as some (including the nominator) may no longer be editing as a result—I figured I'd give you all a ping in case anyone would like to help respond to the above. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the thorough reading and review. I have never done this process before; do I need to respond to the individual items above? Or just begin making article corrections? Both? Thanks! —Grlucas (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, . Generally speaking it's best to both make the corrections to the article and to the individual points here giving a sense of change has been made; as an example, here's another (almost complete) review. And of course, feel free to note if you disagree with, or are having difficulty implementing, any of the above comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you. I'll get on this ASAP, and I appreciate the advice and examples. Cheers! —Grlucas (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, I'll work on trying to address some of these issues as well. Dcb1986 (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe your questions have been addressed above and in the article. Let me know what else needs attention, or what I further messed up. Thanks again. —Grlucas (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * and, apologies for the delay in responding. I've given it another read and made a few edits—it looks good, and I'm passing it now. Nicely work with this article; it's cool to see well-built articles on minor but interesting subjects, let alone as the result of a team project. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time, consideration, and hard work here. I have enjoyed the process and would like to do more—both from improving articles and reviewing them. I think the latter would make me a much better writer. I appreciate it. —Grlucas (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)