Talk:Barack Obama "Hope" poster/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
My suggestions are below. Please respond to each one individually, and I'll cross them out as we go. Good luck!

Intro:

• "An iconic image" is POV; who's to say it's iconic? It would be more accurate to describe it as a poster that became widely recognized around the world, or something like that.
  • Reuters, among others, has cited at the end of the first sentence. I don't think it's biased at all to call it "iconic", which is pretty much how it's always described. I've added another citation from the BBC just for some variety; there are others from AP, New York Times, LA Times, and other high-end news organizations, but I don't think it's necessary.--ragesoss (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong, I think iconic is an accurate description. But I'm a reporter in real life, and if I tried to write "the iconic poster" in describing this, I'd get scolded by my editors. By including it this way you are (and by extension, the article is) declaring that it's iconic, and thus opening up neutrality and POV problems. 'However, you could easily say something like this: "The Barack Obama 'HOPE' poster is an image of Barack Obama designed by artist Shepard Fairey, which has been widely described as an iconic image that became synonymous with the Obama 2008 presidential campaign." or something like that. You can use the same sources for attribution for that. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I've change it, although I don't think it's really an improvement. But it's not a big deal.--ragesoss (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• The end of this intro should include the fact that the image on the poster was eventually discovered to be inspired by an AP photo taken by Mannie Garcia, and that Fairey and AP are in discussions over whether the image is fair use or requires permission.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Perfect. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Can we break the intro into at least two paragraphs? I'd actually suggest three: start the second one at "It was created and distributed widely..." and the third one at "In January 2009..." since the third paragraph will be longer once the copyright issues are added.
  • Done, into three paragraphs.--ragesoss (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• The image of the comparison between the Mannie Garcia picture and the poster should be moved down to the "Origin and copyright issues" section.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Concept and design:

• Perhaps the wikilink should be dropped for Yosi Sergant; if this person is just a publicist, it seems unlikely an article will ever be created for them, so the redlink shouldn't stay. (On the other hand, I suggest keeping in the Steven Heller and Mannie Garcia redlinks, since those people are more notable and would perhaps have articles made about them in the future.)
  • I suspect that Sergant is notable. Actually, he probably meets the general notability criterion just from coverage related to the poster, but I believe he has been covered in relation to other work as well.--ragesoss (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• "(eventually revealed to be an April 2006 photo by freelancer Mannie Garcia for The Associated Press [5][2])" -- Could you provide add something to this like "...Associated Press; see Origin and copyright issues section below)" with a wikilink to the related section? Also, place the citations outside the parathesis, not within it, and make sure they are in order ([2][5], not [5][2])
  • The internal link seems like a messy way to do it, and I don't think it's necessary for so small an article, especially since the footnotes can lead readers to the information anyway. I've fixed the formatting.--ragesoss (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Since Mannie Garcia and the Associated Press are mentioned here first, put the wikilinks up here, and remove them from the "Origin and copyright issues" section.
  • They are now mentioned in the intro and linked there only.--ragesoss (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I wikilinked them at their first reference in the article as well for consistency sake; the other wikilinks in the intro are also wikilinked in the article too, so I think it makes sense to do them for Garcia and the AP as well. If this is bothersome to you for any reason though, you can change them back and I won't be offended. :D --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Some context is needed to explain what exactly the "signature OBEY star" means.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• It should be mentioned somewhere in this section that Fairey readily admits he found the photograph that served as the basis for the poster during a Google Image Search. I'm pretty sure there are about a bazillion sources for this, but just to name a few: here and here.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Distribution during the 2008 campaign:

• Can you just add a bit of context to the end of the last sentence in the first paragraph, explaining what exactly it means when you say the post "went viral"?
  • Done, although I think the link was sufficient.--ragesoss (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• It should be mentioned somewhere in the article probably here that the Fairey claims to have not received any sort of income because of the painting.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Parodies and imitations:

• I think it might be worth taking the last paragraph of Distribution during the 2008 campaign and breaking it into a separate section for all the parodies and imitations, especially is you add the ones I list below. Let me know what you think...
• You could mention that David Wolbrecht, a graphic designer from the University of Washington, wrote a How-To guide for anybody who wanted to use Adobe Illustrator to emulate the poster. The site itself could and probably should be used as the citation, but it's also mentioned here.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Similarly, also mentioned by the previous site, Chicago computer programmer Dabi Kaufmann created a Photo Booth plugin emulating the poster; that could warrant a mention as well. That site is here.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• I really think it should be mentioned that Shepard Fairey was pegged to create the 2008 Time magazine Person of the Year cover in a similar fashion to his Hope poster (source here). It'd be nice if that image could be used in the article too...
  • I mentioned the Time cover. I think there are enough fair use images in this article already.--ragesoss (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• This might just be the Colbert fan in me, but I think it's worth mentioning too that Shepherd Fairey made an image of Stephen Colbert in the image of his HOPE poster for Entertainment Weekly, when The Colbert Report was named the number one show in the magazine's best and worst of 2008 list. This is mentioned in the Colbert Show's Jan 15 episode, which features an interview with Fairey.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin and copyright issues:

• "... where Obama was also in attendance." This part of the sentence can be dropped; it's obvious Obama was there because a photo was taken of him there, no need to spell it out so much.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• It should be mentioned that the Jim Young photo originally believed to be the source image was taken in January 2007; there are lots of sources for this, shouldn't be hard to find one.
  • Done.--ragesoss (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe it's worth mentioning that the only time Fairey tries to protect his poster's copyright issues are when people bootleg it for profit does he protect it's copyright issues. I know this from his Stephen Colbert episode, although there's probably another source out there if you don't want to use that one.
  • I don't think needs to be in the article; it's just one detail of many that have come up in interviews.--ragesoss (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I meant to drop this suggestion in favor of my last one under the "Distribution during the 2008 campaign" section. As it stands, I agree with you and struck this objection. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Images:

• Might it be worth including this photo in the article somewhere? It's especially interesting because it has the original PROGRESS title.
  • Although it's claimed to be a free image, obviously that one is actually fair use of Fairey's work. If the PROGRESS version is to be pictured, I think it would be better just to use a straight version of that. But again, I think it's hard to justify any additional fair use images.--ragesoss (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes
5. Stable: Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)