Template:Did you know nominations/Ballpoint pen artwork

Ballpoint pen artwork

 * ... that native New York artist Lennie Mace, in 1993, created a ballpoint pen rendition of Leonardo da Vinci's Renaissance painting Mona Lisa (1503-1506) entitled Mona a'la Mace?
 * Comment: among the various art-related wikipedia articles i've authored and edited, i find this artwork to be high-quality and of notable interest.

Created/expanded by Penwatchdog (talk). Self nom at 16:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png As I'm reading the history log, there have been no edits on June 17. Therefore, I will move this to May 30 log because it's the date that the draft was moved into article namespace. I hope it's not too late. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * i hope not too late~! yeah after i submitted the nom i realized i may have overlooked the dating issue. may the wiki-gods shine down on me, this my first time DYKnom~ elsewise, after skimming other DYK-talk-points, i went back to the article and did some editing to insure acceptance. any&all suggestions & assistance appreciated~ Penwatchdog (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Age issues. 18 days is pushing it quite a bit. Under 10 I'd consider it, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else care to weigh-in briefly? i really dropped the ball on this nom, just say the word and i'll quietly walk away with my tail between my legs.58.156.24.110 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol_question.svg ALT proposal: this ballpoint-Mona-Lisa was also part of a massive revision of the Ballpoint pen artwork article, which i believe was uploaded much more recently (& within age-range limits?). In fact, it may have been the BPpen-artwork article which i meant as the nom in the first place. How about re-directing the nom to Ballpoint pen artwork article INSTEAD of Lennie Mace? Penwatchdog (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg That would be fine. The ballpoint pen artwork article is very promotional though, that needs to be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crisco... any specif's that would make an immediate difference? ALSO: can someone out there please MAKE the above-mentioned article-switch to the Ballpoint pen artwork? Too new at this to deal with that right now~ Anyway i'll edit the article right now; clocks ticking! Anyone else?Penwatchdog (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * this nom to another date: June 13, 2012. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png All set. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall it be renamed to template:did you know nominations/Ballpoint pen artwork? --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * YES, George, Ballpoint pen artwork would be the article, with the hook referring to Lennie Mace's ballpoint Mona. THANKS for helping! Meanwhile... i've re-read that article several times and can't personally find direct instances of "promotion." The article is merely just offering what information is available AND verifiable. I'll gladly work on whatever need's reworking, IF someone can point out what may require reworking (including the hook!). Thanks everyone.Penwatchdog (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Renamed to Template:did you know nominations/Ballpoint pen artwork. --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * George, just so you know in future: you are not supposed to rename DYK templates. It specifically says not to in the DYK instructions. You just use the subpage parameter in the DYKmake template to make sure it points to the right place. Renames tend to make a mess, and the main "comment" link for this from T:TDYK no longer works, which is unfortunate. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that artists have used ballpoint pens to create replicas of Renaissance masterpieces, such as Lennie Mace's Mona a'la Mace (pictured)? Penwatchdog (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bolded link to target. --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While awaiting constructive criticism/suggestions, i've been re-reading the article and... personally (& maintaining neutrality) i can't find instances of promotion as implied above. If anything, i can only wonder if it's my direct use of certain artist's names within the article which may be against rules. If so, i can easily edit as necessary BUT... i think my usage of names is fair especially in relation to specific quotes by those specific artists of the genre which are noted in the article (which are from reputable source material, i think) of which more than one person or Company is named. IF, for some reason, the inclusion of the "notable artists" list altogether may be a cause of concern, i don't find the list itself to be problematic (those are the notables from among a mass of doodlers filling "ballpoint art" search-lists). Meanwhile still waiting for feedback.Penwatchdog (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. George THANKS for that name-transfer, i hope it doesn't cause you(us?) more trouble than it's worth! By the way, italics noted commented upon in a seperate DYKtalk were just a typing error of my own, not meant to imply any "tone"!Penwatchdog (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Still needs a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg This is going nowhere until the language is made more neutral and less like an essay. "Humble origins"? "Everyone in the civilised world"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, appreciated. Still learning. I revised the two lines questioned above, specifically, and the first couple of paragraphs, generally, to meet neutrality standards. Will return to continue full-article revisions now. Anxious to make this a "good article" and welcome all reviews, comments, criticisms! Any other specifics? Penwatchdog (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the article, for starters. Try and redo what's possible, and then I'll have a go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just finished a sizable revision of the whole article... I'd been compiling additional info for an upcoming overhaul anyway, so I inserted some now (along with plenty of deletions and re-wording) I'll take another look at that first sentence; I'm expecting to continue tomorrow anyway! Meanwhile it's ready for another read at your convenience, let me know what you think. I deleted the warning-boxes from up-top just to keep future reviewers from being unduly influenced (either way)... feel free to insert them again if you feel necessary but i think i did a darn good job.Penwatchdog (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit/Revis basically completed; request new reviews please. I've made so many revis' the article may be eligible as a new DYK entry (may just continue adding all others I've been sitting on)! I cut citations from the Lead because everything mentioned is cited/proven within the article (I'd been meaning to do that anyway because citations in the Lead just seem unsightly to me). First line: if anyone has ALTs, let's hear'em! But that line is mo-than-sufficiently backed up in the article & i don't find it sensational; it's a Lead simply summing up all which follows. Expansion of the "Limitations" sub-sections balances neutrality. Almost every line in the article is cited except Colors; do i really need to cite such common knowledge? Requested art-data from noted artists; what's currently presented is all I've received so far. The article covers half-a-Century of an art sub-genre of which Wiki may now provide the only encyclopedic coverage, & I'll keep working on it!Penwatchdog (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Fine ballpoint pen artwork comparable to those created using traditional art mediums are no longer an oddity. Low cost, availability, and portability make this common writing tool a convenient alternative to sometimes expensive, cumbersome art supplies." - Still quite promotional
 * "Surprising effects can be achieved, " - Promotional
 * "They are not generally marketed as "art supplies" and only appear for sale in such stores infrequently. Ballpoints dispensing standard black, blue, or red ink can be bought in any stationary store, even convenience stores. Green ink is another common color, and four-in-one pens containing all of the above colors are also marketed by some pen companies. In recent years, pink and purple inks have appeared, and novel colors such as light-blue or -green, orange, and yellow can be found with some searching in specialty shops. Gimmicky, cigar-sized pens containing up to ten colors have also been manufactured, although both ink-composition and mechanical quality of such pens for creating artwork may be questionable." - Unreferenced
 * "and to create flash-art tattoo samples for display in tattoo parlors. Folklore suggests that prison inmates modify ballpoint pens into tattoo guns for use while incarcerated." - Unsourced.
 * That's just a sampling. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Addressed all above issues~ NEXT please. Thanks for helping make this a better article! hey I understand DYK requirements, but i wanna make sure youre keeping in mind: this is Wikipedia; barring major issues of legality or morality, general rules are in place moreso as guidelines than strict policy. stressing: barring major issues of legality or morality. Show me rules that state an article shouldn't be engagingly written and i'll humbly abide, point out overt instances in the article and I'll happily rework them. This is neither Brittanica nor Journalism101 and we all should consider ourselves lucky that the things we're able to write about here actually make it into public record (except maybe these twitter DYKs, sorry Tiger!). So, as you are an authority worthy of regard, so are we all. For now, let's stick to doctrine when reviewing; most other details are a matter of administrative opinion & will only waste all our precious time with the inevitable cat&mouse. Nothing at all personal toward you Crisco! i know your credentials. But it is what it is, let's deal with the facts for now. And how about some third-&-fourth opinions? anyone? anyone? Meanwhile I continue working on it. respectfully. Penwatchdog (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutrality isn't a guideline. It's the second pillar. Looks neutral enough, now lets check sourcing. What makes this a reliable source? Infmom.net? This? This? This? pilot.co.jp? This? And so on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine points, Crisco. Thanks. Anyway, questions of neutrality have been addressed, I believe. Getting to sources... I see; I know. Heres a dilemma I'm probably not the only one to face: how do you cite the obvious? and to what end? I don't want to consider my/our audience to be such numbskulls that I'd need to provide sources for lines such as "ballpoint pens can be found in most convenience stores" or "everyone's used a ballpoint pen," for example. And if an "encyclopedia" can't act as an authority to make such simple declarations, then what's the use?? everyone KNOWS ballpoint pens are available in convenience stores; everyone in the civilized world DOES have a ballpoint pen within five feet of them RIGHT NOW... do we really need to source that?? would i need to source that "the sky is blue, but sometimes at sunset the sky is orange"...? A line has to be drawn somewhere, so to speak. Most such sentences now in-question pose no points of possible contention. At the very least, the sources supplied confirm the existence of the point itself. The article isn't arguing nuclear science or its detrement to society. Anyone else care to weigh in on this? Maybe I'm the numbskull??


 * Next... How can i provide source material for which i have hard-copy, in my hands, but which doesn't appear online?? for the time being i provided what i could. I believe I've read somewhere that there is a degree of leeway in such situations, providing some degree of "trust" in the author. And, again, none of these instances are discussing Hitler's intentions when he invaded Poland etc etc... For the Lennie Mace "Juxtapoz" source, I have a copy of that magazine in my hands; what I've quoted from that magazine is right there in that magazine. All i could find online is an archive source including his name in the contents. So, tell me, what's a numbskull to do? It's the exact same situation for the Japanese Gallery/Art Guide in question; I have that magazine in my hands, and everything I've credited it for in the article exists in the hard-copy (in this case in Japanese though). What-to-do, friend? Does that make it any less valid? It's traceable if it needs to be!


 * Listen, I'll continue to do what i can to see this through but I gotta tell ya... I've been awaiting this kind of constructive critisism for a couple of weeks and would've had time to deal with these situations during that time but... I've got paying deadlines to get to and my time to deal with this will expire in around three- two- one- ... If i lose this nom then so be it —appearing in DYK for a day: nice, but only worth so much of my time— but it'd be a shame... There's gotta be some leeway provided here, most of all... again, The article isn't saying "Bill Clinton was the leader of the Cubist movement during the French Revolution." What we're dealing with here are mostly common sense issues. And then what? I'll have to debate the "hook" for another week-or-two?? I hope someone's putting some real time into exploring better procedure because, actually, some of what i've seen... never mind...


 * Being wikipedia, if someone wants to nip-&-tuck the article to qualify DYK, please do. If there are things i can do in the next 48, lay'em on me right away and I'll do what i can. Otherwise, come Monday or Tuesday, my attention to this is done for at least a week and you can just dump the nom altogether. With all due respect to all, Jimbo included. Penwatchdog (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently someone is currently undertaking a major revision, with my blessing. I'll return to it myself later to inspect. Re-regarding the above-questioned sources: publications for which i couldn't find online versions, i supplied whatever URLs i could (maybe i shouldnt've?), AND/but also supplied all pertinent information specifically tied to the source publications; issue/volume, author, pages, etc are all provided in the reference section(Specif'ly "Juxtapoz" & "Gekkan Gallery")... the "Metro" source is 1of2 provided to support that media portray bpp-artists as oddities, located in those publication's "weird" sections and referred to as "starving artists"... if 1-of-the-2 are unnecessary, cut one. For now I'll just wait for the results of the edit. Penwatchdog (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The hook actually doesn't seem that bad, and as long as the references are of high quality there's only one major thing to look at: paraphrasing. Based on the writing style of this article I don't see any major issues coming out of that check, so this should probably be the last hurdle. Who knows, when the article is done it could possibly go through GA.
 * Regarding the URLs for offline publications, if it is not hosted by the same publication and not licensed, it shouldn't be linked.
 * Regarding the experience, I actually look forward to this on the main page (interesting picture). However, we need to make sure this meets the DYK criteria. Another reviewer would possibly have just failed this by now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We're all good Crisco; don't mind my tone, i recently quit smoking...


 * Looking ahead to revisions which have already been made by someone else (and ongoing as of this writing; you?)... I'd like to maintain a no-citations-in-the-Lead policy, but I've noticed that most lines in the Lead 'graphs received "fact" cites... I'd really like to circumvent this while I have time, myself, so I've prepared the following ALTs; for the first 'graph...


 * "Since the invention and subsequent proliferation of ballpoint pens in the mid-20th Century, creative application(usage)/capabilities of this common writing tool is generally associated with gradeschool doodles or (distracted) scribbling. Over the years, however, ballpoint pen artwork produced by professional artists has appeared in gallery and museum exhibitions, and given increasing media coverage (worldwide).


 * and, the last sentence of the second 'graph (which seems to be the only one questioned there)...


 * "Ballpoint pen art websites showcase the artwork in it's varying forms, and offer information of the usage of ballpoint pens as an art medium."


 * That last sentence can be ditched altogether if necessary; it was intended more as a harmless nod to the (obviously) many talented doodlers hustling their talent on the web. Are they gonna sue me? Of course, if you or anyone else wish to provide variations on-all-above, I have around 24-hours-more i can attend to this. Then it's in your hands. In further defense, I don't see the problem with those sentences in current form; are they not referenced in sourced material within body-copy? I've been looking at all of this too much and welcome fresh commentary from more'o y'all, too. Penwatchdog (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like you have a fairy godmother/godfather. Looks like a matter of removing unreferenced / poorly referenced information and we're golden. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's still a bit of work to do. I've verified all the sources and only a couple need to be fixed. Most of them are RS but there's a couple that I've marked as needing to be replaced. A couple are also non-RS but they're verifying uncontroversial things like a 10-color pen exists. I also checked for copyvios and close paraphrasing and everything looked good, but I couldn't see most of the Google book stuff, so I'm AGFing there. The lede still needs to be checked and sourced and there's a couple things I want to check for OR and weasel words. Most of the time consuming stuff is done now. Best regards. 64.40.54.160 (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As tonight is the last time I can spare for a week, I'll set to work right now dealing with what I can, mostly delete & re-flow text around deletes. There's one alternative-&-surely valid "ballpoint tattoo" reference in my sandbox; meant to add that before, will do so now. Will rewrite the Lede to match.
 * If you please, what's RS and non-RS and OR? Learning everyday, I promise to pay my tuition. Thanks for putting up with me folks, & the support, really. Let me know particularly what I can/need to do TONIGHT. Penwatchdog (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OR is "original research", RS is "reliable source". 64 is saying that a couple of your sources weren't up to snuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The two issues you have to deal with are those "not in citation given" and "better source needed" tags. The first show that the source does not support what is written in the article, while the second indicates that the source is probably not reliable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the obscure language, Penwatchdog. My comments were really aimed at the people reviewing your DYK. OK, everything I was concerned about has been taken care of except the stuff marked with the "not in citation given" and "better source needed" tags. I'll let Penwatchdog decide if he wants to remove that stuff or find better refereces for them. The lead section looks good the way it is and I've used the existing references for it. So I think I'm done for now. Best regards. 64.40.54.160 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Elvis has left the building. unreferenced / poorly referenced / questioned material has been revised. Not much, very minor, very easy; I pulled from standby refs, re-wrote, and/or deleted the questionables to administration, as per Crisco & 64. Greatest THANKS to you for your time & attention, and for helping make a better article! If we ever meet feel free to smack me in the head for being such a d**k. I won't even be near an internet connection until Saturday 7/21, so I'll just pray that everything is now in order, hope for the best, and check-in again soon as i can. Into your hands i commend my spirit. Penwatchdog (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Good to go, with the hook "... that artists have used ballpoint pens to create replicas of Renaissance masterpieces, such as Lennie Mace's Mona a'la Mace (pictured)?" AGF on offline and non-English sources — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Highlighting with green based on Crisco's tick above. :) --LauraHale (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) <!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-