Talk:Cover-up tattoo/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this! I've responded to most of your items; ought to get to the rest tomorrow. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I think this is ready for a second look when you're available. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: All looks good - happy to pass this now. I realize that I forgot to request 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)[reply]

Lede

I recommend changing cover-up to cover-up tattoo in the first sentence - see MOS:BOLDLEDE.
- My thinking was that this is natural disambiguation, like the "French" at French language. But that was just the default approach because this article was at "Cover-up (tattoo)" till I moved it. Both "cover-up" and "cover-up tattoo" are very common in sources, and "tattoo cover-up" is also pretty common for tattoo-over-tattoo cases. So it could go either way. I still lean slightly toward just "cover-up" because it allows for easy linking of tattoo in the lede sentence, but I welcome your thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Dreamyshade: Glad to see you here! While you're in the neighborhood, any thought on the question of which term is more the WP:COMMONNAME (for purposes of boldfacing), "cover-up" or "cover-up tattoo"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @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)[reply]
  ~~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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Dreamyshade: If you have TWL access, see [1]. It mentions the philately usage, but nothing about tattoos. I'm sure you're right that that's the etymology (noting especially that in French, stamp surcharges are the primary meaning of the term), but I'm not sure there's anything we can say about it that wouldn't be OR, beyond documenting the usage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two short paragraphs about self-harm cover-ups.
Done -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I've merged it into "Practices" (renamed from "Tattoo shop practices"). That doesn't feel perfect, but seems more logical than "Methods". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo shop practices

Split the run-on sentence Three months later... into two
- Done. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Standardize date format in references - I see both dmy and ISO formats.
- Done. Had forgotten a {{use DMY dates}}, which does it automatically. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commonscat link should be in an external links section - see MOS:LAYOUTEL
- Done -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
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.