Talk:Cover-up tattoo/GA1
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Tamzin (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Great work on this article - it's very close to GA. Just a few changes needed or suggested, mostly formatting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing this! I've responded to most of your items; ought to get to the rest tomorrow. -- they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @they|xe) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @alt text for the images. That's always best practice, but not a GA requirement, so I won't hold up the pass over it. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @
- @
Lede
- I recommend changing
cover-up
tocover-up tattoo
in the first sentence - seeMOS:BOLDLEDE.- My thinking was that this is they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @they|xe) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @Tamzin To me, the phrase "cover-up tattoo" sounds most natural as a common name for this subject (for boldfacing), although that does make writing the first sentence a little trickier. In my Southern California dialect, a "cover-up" (as a noun by itself) is a garment one wears at the beach over a bathing suit. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
In my South Jersey dialect we just wear our bathing suits.But okay, I think it can be rephrased well enough if we pluralize it. --they|xe) 15:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @Tamzin To me, the phrase "cover-up tattoo" sounds most natural as a common name for this subject (for boldfacing), although that does make writing the first sentence a little trickier. In my Southern California dialect, a "cover-up" (as a noun by itself) is a garment one wears at the beach over a bathing suit. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
- My thinking was that this is
- I would consider merging the first and second paragraphs, and the third and fourth, to have more consistent paragraph lengths in the lede. Not a requirement though.
- So the logic here was that the second and third summarize the two respective halves of "Contexts", while the fourth summarizes the other sections. Length-wise I agree it's suboptimal but the conceptual delineation is important. Very open to ideas of how to arrange things that preserve that, though. -- they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- So the logic here was that the second and third summarize the two respective halves of "Contexts", while the fourth summarizes the other sections. Length-wise I agree it's suboptimal but the conceptual delineation is important. Very open to ideas of how to arrange things that preserve that, though. --
Contexts
- Six images is a lot for this much text. I would consider removing the Angelina Jolie photo (since she got laser removal first, does a new tattoo in the same spot count as a cover-up?) and one of the two depictions of self-harm cover-ups.
- The Jolie tattoo image is the least important in the article, and removing it allows us to keep the dharmachakra tattoo video from running in to the next section, so, sure,
Done. As to the self-harm cover-ups, well I may be biased because I took the photos, but they do show two importantly distinct concepts: the moth is a conventional cover-up, whereas the ladder incorporates the scars into the art. But the "before" image for the moth tattoo, while useful context, may just be too much here. So I've cut that, put the moth and the ladder side-by-side (with a different crop of the moth to match aesthetically), and linked inline to the "before" pic. -- they|xe) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]- BTW, it looks like there's a chance I'll actually have ladder-person and moth-person in the same room sometime next month. If so, a physical side-by-side could make for a really cool image. -- they|xe) 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- BTW, it looks like there's a chance I'll actually have ladder-person and moth-person in the same room sometime next month. If so, a physical side-by-side could make for a really cool image. --
- The Jolie tattoo image is the least important in the article, and removing it allows us to keep the dharmachakra tattoo video from running in to the next section, so, sure,
- Is there any information available about the history of cover-ups for unwanted tattoos? I understand that there may not be.
- Just a couple notes if helpful: Albert Parry's 1933 book Tattoo talks about "the surcharge of one design upon another", but I wouldn't cite him - the book has quite a bit of exaggeration and speculation. It does seem though that "surcharge" was an older term for cover-ups, since this book from 1896 uses the same language. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Added Bertillon's book to the article since it's likely that other people talking about surcharging had read it. Related: this complaint from 1897 about using tattoos for identification in the Army, and this essay from 1919 about Navy sailors. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like that comes from surcharged stamps: overprint. I'd be curious to look at what the OED says for surcharge, to see if they have an earlier use than Bertillon in the context of tattoos, but I don't have easy access to it at the moment. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @they|xe) 15:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @
- Looks like that comes from surcharged stamps: overprint. I'd be curious to look at what the OED says for surcharge, to see if they have an earlier use than Bertillon in the context of tattoos, but I don't have easy access to it at the moment. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Added Bertillon's book to the article since it's likely that other people talking about surcharging had read it. Related: this complaint from 1897 about using tattoos for identification in the Army, and this essay from 1919 about Navy sailors. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just a couple notes if helpful: Albert Parry's 1933 book Tattoo talks about "the surcharge of one design upon another", but I wouldn't cite him - the book has quite a bit of exaggeration and speculation. It does seem though that "surcharge" was an older term for cover-ups, since this book from 1896 uses the same language. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the two short paragraphs about self-harm cover-ups.
- Done -- they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
Methods
- Move the removal section into this section, rather than having a separate level 2 heading for one sentence.
- I almost did this before putting it up for GAN, but the problem is that "Methods" refers to methods of tattooing, which laser removal is not. I agree there shouldn't be a one-sentence section, but I think it'll need some different conceptual reörganization... I'll sleep on it. -- they|xe) 02:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Okay, I've merged it into "Practices" (renamed from "Tattoo shop practices"). That doesn't feel perfect, but seems more logical than "Methods". -- they|xe) 15:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Okay, I've merged it into "Practices" (renamed from "Tattoo shop practices"). That doesn't feel perfect, but seems more logical than "Methods". --
- I almost did this before putting it up for GAN, but the problem is that "Methods" refers to methods of tattooing, which laser removal is not. I agree there shouldn't be a one-sentence section, but I think it'll need some different conceptual reörganization... I'll sleep on it. --
Tattoo shop practices
- Split the run-on sentence
Three months later...
into two- Done. -- they|xe) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
References
- Standardize date format in references - I see both dmy and ISO formats.
- Done. Had forgotten a {{they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Commonscat link should be in an external links section - see MOS:LAYOUTEL
- Done -- they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]
Overall
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (lists):
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a ():
- a ():
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.