Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Graffiti/archive3

Graffiti

 * reconstructed incorrectly archived nom from history at Featured article candidates/Graffiti/archive1

Self-nom. I've spent quite a bit of time rearranging content and editing this. Might be considered a bit heavy on the images, however as Graffiti is a visual art I think this is appropriate. I'm hoping this is ready for FAC status, I think it is. Share your opinions folks. Alkivar 02:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It has come a long way, and I think it should be featured soon. I'm still looking a little bit sideways at the ==20th Century== section... it hasn't really got a flow...  gangs, then WWII, then DC, then London, then Scandanavia... it's all good information, but randomly assembled.  However, the bulk of the article is quite good, and it's very thorough by now.  I think the plentiful graphics are appropriate. GTBacchus 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've reordered the 20th Century subsection, is this better? Alkivar 10:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is, although the computer I'm using now suppresses half of the first paragraph in that section, for some reason. When I click "edit" I can see it's all still there... GTBacchus 03:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you try purging your cache? I've had this problem with pages on Wiki before. Alkivar 03:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object, needs copyediting . Fredrik | talk 11:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there something in particular your noticing? Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I copyedited one section which really seemed to need it. The rest of the article looks better, though, at a glance. I must still object due to the much too short lead section. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. Cruddy lead section. Picture and TOC overlap to create formatting hell at 800x600. Could do with a bit of a copyedit (i.e. one not very long paragraph uses "in some cases" three times). What is there is quite reasonable, with a bit of an edit. However, there's really a lot missing about the bad side of graffiti - sure, sometimes it is art - but a lot of it is just vandalism, and there's very little of that there. There's also little coverage of the societal implications (I'm thinking of Giuliani's crackdown on graffiti in the early stages of his war on crime, as NYC mayor). Ambi 11:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It most certainly does mention the negative side, theres an entire section on its legality/illegality. It mentions UK campaigns to wipe out graf completely. All throught the article it mentions illegal graffiti. I dont think we can stress the point too much more without beating people over the head. On your other points, I was unaware of the formatting hell, I dont browse at 800x600 (and havent since 1998). I'll see what I can do about that. Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have since reduced the lead in image size, it appears on MY computer at least to stop the overlap. Is this good enough for you? I have also added a paragraph regarding Giuliani's crackdown of the mid 1990s. Alkivar 18:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have also beefed up the lead in a bit, is this better? Any suggestions on how I can improve it more to change your objection? Alkivar 06:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wow, this article has come a long way since I last saw it. I remember tagging it for cleanup (or at least wanting to do so). It still needs minor fixes: it's wordy in some places and might be tightened, and I guess that train bombing could be part of the legal section, without its own heading. But it's pretty close to featured status. I'll see if I can do some copyediting later.


 * Comment: I've asked Zephyr to come look it over and make a few changes. He certainly knows the history having been involved with the Graffiti culture of NYC since the 1970s. Hopefully this will tighten up the article and remove some of the worthless chaff. Alkivar 19:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article contains these links but they don't go anywhere- sepulchers, Beware of Dog, Anti-Graffiti Task Force, Keep Britain Tidy, wicked style, wild style, TAKI 183, Chrome Angelz, Brim, Cost (graffiti artist), Revs, Stak, HNT, André, Os Gemeos, Herbert, Flying Fortress (graffiti artist), Gomes, Graffitilovesyou, anti-consumerist, tactical media, Urban Pasifika--JK the unwise 11:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Last I checked red links were not reason to deny a FAC tho. Yes I realize you have not objected. I believe these will be filled soon enough. Alkivar 13:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object: We have a policy to avoid self references, yet this image is in the article:

-- Alterego &#9786; 22:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You have got to be kidding me, your going to object to the entire content based on 1 image? First it is not really a self reference since it does not refer to "the website" nor to anything except as a caption for the word "Wikipedia" which is contained therein. Granted this is semantics but in this case this is pretty tame. I think this easily falls under "...the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." except that we're not discussing it merely referring. Second I should point out that Avoid self-references is not a set-in-stone policy, it is merely a suggestion like the one here: Make_articles_useful_for_readers which I am following. Alkivar 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you have, in general, been very mean to those responding on this page. -- Alterego &#9786; 04:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object: A good article, but not featured article quality yet, imo. The structure seems a bit disorganized to me (the table of contents lists many major sections but not so many subsections - surely there's a way of dividing the subject up into 4 or 5 main sections and then breaking those down further?).  Perhaps it isn't so important, but I think there should be a section on graffiti in video games (such as Sega's Jet Set Radio) - tagging "simulators".  I'm also not comfortable with "computer generated graffiti" being used for "graffiti drawn using a computer".  At least in music and most art, computer generated suggests that the computer is actually creating the aesthetics -- acting as creator, with some direction from the use -- not merely being used as a low-level tool. -- Oarih 11:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Conditional support - self reference policy dispute needs to be sorted out. Other than I think the article is great.--ZayZayEM 01:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)