Wikipedia:Peer review/Tattoo/archive1
Tattoo[edit]
This page is doing well, I think, and I'd like to have some opinion on what could be done to make it a good nominee for featured article status. It's been through quite a bit of fairly well-mannered discussion and is in decent shape right now. If you can give any constructive criticism or help I would appreciate it. Resonanteye 23:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Impressive article. For improvement, it might help to work on linking the various references in the text to actual links which seem to be included in the sections at the end. (ie. use the <ref></ref> tool.)--JAXHERE | Talk 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I ran that, and it seems to be fine according to the machine. I'm more concerned with anything human eyes can find, now. Resonanteye 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here are my thoughts:
- I don't know that we need a big explanation of how old the tattoo is and how long it took in the caption for the picture at the beginning of the article. I may be wrong. Same goes for the 'office manager'.
- 'Terms' could be renamed to 'etymology'? When doing so, it might be appropriate to link to 'tattoo's' Wiktionary page.
- 'History' seems too short to me. It should be a fairly central part of the article.
- "Tattooing was legalized in New York City, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma between 2002 and 2006." - this confuses me.
- 'Negative associations' should truly be 'Social attitudes', and thus to give equal weight, a 'Positive associations' section should also be included. It's a good idea to argue both sides.
- 'Abrahamic religious prohibitions' is a) too short for something coming under its own heading, therefore unbalancing the article, and b) has a confusing title. Try 'Prohibition in Abrahamic religions' or something a little easier to swallow.
- 'Tattoo Inks' - 'Inks' shouldn't be capitalised.
- "Temporary tattoos are not really tattoos." - this sounds a little hostile. Try "following a traditional definition, temporary tattoos do not categorise as true tattoos"... or something.
- It might be worth expanding 'Forensics'.
- I can see you've used a lot of books for this, but there are only two inline citations in the entire article. You need to reference more, even if it's just referring to a book by saying "Smith, 198" or something similar. I'm not entirely sure of how to do this, so see WP:CITE for more information.
- The other issue here is that it is heavily US-centric. A very good article will represent a worldwide view.
I hope some of this helps. Seegoon 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about the first caption.
I also agree about the sources..the problem I'm having is that, not being the original author of many sections, I am finding it very difficult to figure out which source is referenced where, exactly. But I have many of the cited books and magazines in my library at home, and I've been trying to sort through them (the two inline sources are in the sections I wrote.)
I'll change the wording in the legalization sentence. it is rather confusing.
The "negative associations" was originally there, but I agree that it is somewhat POV. I will try to get some consensus on the talk page to do a major overhaul there. the caption on the second photograph relates to statements made in that section about "respectable professions", so I think that caption mentioning the wearer's occupation is appropriate.
thank you so much for the help!
Resonanteye 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, the new references you've found need to be updated from external links into inline citations using <ref> and </ref> tags. Other than that, it looks like the article is progressing nicely. In the future it'd be great to see it reach FA status, as one day it undoubtedly should. BE THAT MAN! Seegoon 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
How about I be that chick? I don't think my insurance will cover that kind of surgery.
I'm working on the ref tags today.
Resonanteye 22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)