Wikipedia:Peer review/Graffiti/archive1

Graffiti

Hi Everyone,

I came accross this article a few days ago, and learned that it's a former featured article. It's become my personal ambition since then to restore it to its former glory, so I rewrote it over the course of around three days, added refs, and converted the existing refs to footnotes. I'm now nominating it for peer review to see what my fellow wikipedians have to say. Hopefully it can get back up to FA status soon! Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 10:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is in pretty good shape. A few suggestions:

1. You may want to clean up the use of the word "writer" to refer to a graf artist. I think that it may confuse some readers. I don't know a better word to use, or I would do it myself.

2. At the end of the "Government Responses" section, "United States" subection, I read that paragraph to say that spray paint isn't legally sold in Chicago. Is that the case?

Keep up the good work! -- BillWeiss | Talk 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We really need more editors like you, Ultra! Active resurrection of FFAs is very good for the project. Per WP:LEAD, the introductory paragraphs should summarize the entire article. For an article of this length, that tends to mean two to three good sixe paragraphs, just to be a complete summation. Keep up the good work here; I hope to see this as a FAC in the future. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions and encouragement, guys - it really helped. I've changed the word "writer" to "artist" or "graffiti artist" depending on the context, cited a ref for the "graffiti isn't sold in chicago" line, and rewrote the intro. Is there anything else I should look at? Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]