Talk:The Faith of Graffiti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Publication[edit]

I added a few sentences on "The Birth of Graffiti," Naar's own republication of FOG that included 130 new photos and his own essay. -Kyle Tucker (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Markerman76[reply]

Add reference to The Writing on the Wall[edit]

I need some help adding my source (Castelman,Craig..etc.) to the cite list and I need a reference number so I can add it to my sentences in the background. I have been checking the source code and teaching myself some of this, but I can't figure out the reference list? I found a chunk of information about Mayor Lindsay which gave a great account of why he felt the way he did during the interview with A-I. It seems to be too much visually, but it's all from the same source. Any suggestions, or help appreciated. Not trying to plagiarize, I just need help with the cite list and number. Acmunoz14 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acmunoz14: I'll be glad to help. Please tell me what sentence and what page number. L Riley (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reference to this journal article but I seem to be struggling with the date in the references. It is supposed to be September/October 2003 but I am not sure how to make that happen without getting an error. Any assistance is appreciated.L Riley (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizrileymga: Yeah, Wikipedia does not like that double month. I usually pick a month. Also, where did you get Brunskill article (review)? —Grlucas (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: I found it in Galileo. The Writing on the WallL Riley (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizrileymga: Thanks, good work! —Grlucas (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put two sources in the sources when I was trying to put them into bibliography or suggested readings. They are valid sources I'm just not entirely sure if I put them in the correct area.Benjamin Fincher (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjamin Fincher: I fixed them. Thanks for the addition. —Grlucas (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, is there a preferred date format to use in the Bibliography? I apologize if I missed it on the class resource pages. I just noticed there is some variation such as writing out the full month name vs numerical, etc. Thanks!Bdokolasa (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I just added a quote from a reference (Brunskill, 2013) that is already included in the Bibliography (under the "Reception" section). I know we should be able to choose "Re-use," but for some reason that option is not popping up for me. Am I missing something obvious to get this done correctly? Amdoubleu (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph break between Amdoubleu and kerrymoniques paragraph so they'd be easier to read. - Kyle Tucker (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Markerman76 Kyle Tucker[reply]

Added reference (American Psychological Assoc.) In reference to Norman attending harvard but couldn't put it into reference, still trying to figure out what went wrong. My reference is Altherr, T. L. (2019). Norman Mailer. Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=ers&AN=88802055&site=eds-live&scope=site kerrymoniqueKerryMoniqueMcNair (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)kerrymonique[reply]

Nevermind, I figured it out! Acmunoz14 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

@JenniferMGA, Bdokolasa, Lizrileymga, LauraT2020, Dcb1986, KatieRob27, OrchardBreeze, Amdoubleu, Benjamin Fincher, Acmunoz14, Qtwinbush45, Pfowler17, Ereed23, Bamcclure18, Kerrymonique, Ab1g81aL93, and Markerman76: I am in the process of writing some notes that could be of assistance to our reading Faith and then our subsequent writing of the article. I include a bibliography of sources we should have in the library, though some might be in transit. Any electronic sources (articles/reviews) you find could be emailed to me if there is no URL (I'd appreciate it), so I can include them in the bib. Thanks, all. —Grlucas (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a short synopsis of the article. I tried to keep to be general and just give the feeling of the article. Benjamin Fincher (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjamin Fincher: Looks like a great start! Thank you. Bdokolasa (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found two reviews written about The Faith of Graffiti that were published in scholarly journals. I wrote a brief overview of the first under the Reception section to practice citing the source. Next, I plan to add to this analysis as well as write an entry about the second review I found during my research.Ereed23 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reading The Faith of Graffiti and Beardsley's review of it for the second time, I further developed the analysis of Beardsley's review. Ereed23 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My next steps: re-read the article, search by the alternative title to find additional resources.Bamcclure18 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source but haven't actually gotten the article for review. Seelye, J. (1974). Press Button to Release. New Republic, 170(21), 23. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edb&AN=10211802 Bamcclure18 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on some information for the background section. L Riley (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected typos in the existing text. Ereed23 (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this brief documentary that was motivated by the "The Faith of Graffiti"/"Watching My Name Go By," but I'm not exactly sure where it should go. I'm thinking possibly under "Reception," as the content was compelling enough to inspire the video. Thoughts? https://www.factmag.com/2015/07/11/watch-a-rare-1976-bbc-documentary-on-nyc-graffiti/ Bdokolasa (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdokolasa: Based on Editing Wikipedia articles about Books, this source would be appropriate under the "Analysis" section since it was inspired by, and speaks to, the impact of Mailer's essay. Ereed23 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ereed23: Thanks for your help! Bdokolasa (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be careful with that source. It could be copyrighted. Benjamin Fincher (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just put two paragraphs in the Background section and added four sources. Wondering if there's an easier way to create the bibliography and shortened footnotes without having to edit source.L Riley (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizrileymga: I was wondering the same thing. When I attempted to use the process they have us practice in training, it messed up the citations that were already on the page, so I ended up having to edit the source. Then I noticed that in our WikiEdu course it keeps track of how many references you've added, but they don't count if you manually update the source. Ereed23 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a few minor corrections to spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. Amdoubleu (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a url to one of the citations in the bibliography section, and added a requested citation. Dcb1986 (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OrchardBreeze Planned Contributions: I'm exploring three options to develop this article: 1) adding inception of the graffiti movement and description of the original graffiti lettering style (since it differs from today's style) in the background section or maybe a new section for context; 2) a new section defining terms (i.e., "hit") from the article; and 3) the feasibility (and if it's permissible) of adding a map component that identifies the locations referenced in the text placed on a current street level Google map. Some feedback on the map idea is appreciated, please. And what is the likelihood of getting permission to include a photo or two from the book? OrchardBreeze (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OrchardBreeze: I noticed a huge Wikimedia Commons section showing various examples of graffiti in NYC that could be possibly used in this article as well.
Could we just link in the text to the example pages of graffiti? Benjamin Fincher (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjamin Fincher: We could, but an inserted image or two showing an example of the (relevant?) graffiti would be a good way to illustrate an example of what Mailer was describing. Dcb1986 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and made a few edits while proofreading. I also added two links within the text to other parts of wikipedia in the synopsis section. Benjamin Fincher (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible, or does anyone know-how, to get some images of either the book cover or art from the book onto the page? I would but I have no idea how. Benjamin Fincher (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a NY Times Citation about his 1969 Mayoral campaign/platform, along with a sentence. Also, it seems as the Paul Schwartzman Washington Post article in the Bibliography is behind a paywall. Hopefully this NY Times article isn't as well. Dcb1986 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow I am going to add to the reception by elaborating on what Corrine Robins said in the reception portion of the article.Benjamin Fincher (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was researching how to add the cover art for the book and I found this explanation for adding book covers with copyright protection to Wikipedia. Is this possible? Template:Non-free book cover Acmunoz14 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I think we can add an image of the book cover and it will be covered under all of the acceptable fair-use guidelines for Wikipedia. We use a scaled down image, add the source, document the guidelines and make justification in Wiki Commons that the image on the cover benefits and is necessary to the article discussion, and the image will be listed as a non- free, fair-use image. Wiki does seem to only want one cover image, and if the image becomes freely copyrighted years from now, the status will be changed. Please read the articles under Template:Non-free book cover. I've read the copyright info on Wiki Commons, but it looks like we may have some options here. Acmunoz14 (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add photos as well. I would like to add reception content regarding Jon Naar's contributions to the book. Also, more elaboration on Mailer's mayoral campaigning may give insight into the influences and the experiences that catalyzed this work. -- Kyle Tucker (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, I found out that non-free images are only allowed in articles, not sandbox pages. I copied the source of my stub article that I am updating thought I was going crazy when it kept vanishing, then I checked the history and discovered that it was getting deleted by a bot. So make sure your sandbox images are in commons if you don't want them deleted. Dcb1986 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1/22/20 Progress Update[edit]

@JenniferMGA, Bdokolasa, Lizrileymga, LauraT2020, Dcb1986, KatieRob27, OrchardBreeze, Amdoubleu, Benjamin Fincher, Acmunoz14, Qtwinbush45, Pfowler17, Ereed23, Bamcclure18, Kerrymonique, Ab1g81aL93, and Markerman76: Good work, all. There have been some significant efforts made with the article this past week, but there's more to do.

First, many of you did not add a source, and there are plenty to be used. Check the library. If you can't get to the university, your local library could have some great stuff. We need more books. Lennon's bio is a must. Also, sources on blogs (like Burke) and videos without attribution are not strong sources and should probably be removed. Please be meticulous in your sources. See my notes, too, for sources that we should consult. Don't be lazy here.

@Grlucas: I added the Michael Lennon bio "norman mailer a double life" to the bibliography.Benjamin Fincher (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: I've ordered Graffiti New York to be delivered next week. Would I add a source that hasn't been cited yet? OrchardBreeze (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: I found the answer. Thank you. OrchardBreeze (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:STYLE before changing mechanical items, like punctuation inside or outside quotation marks. Wikipedia has its own style, and we want to follow it, please.

The above conversation is a bit of a mess, so let's start sections below that correspond to each section in the article. I'll start one called "General" for discussion over the entire article. Post your comments in each section to try to keep orderly.

Finally, be sure you know the difference between "Reception" and "Analysis". The former should only use contemporaneous reviews. It could also use reviews for re-releases. Analysis should come from critical secondary sources, like the biographies. Bios, too, like Mills, are good for background. Avoid too much info on Mailer himself, as he has his own WP entry.

Keep up the good work, all. —Grlucas (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

An image of the original book should be uploaded (training on this is coming a bit later). The infobox needs to be filled out, too. Any takers? —Grlucas (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few fields today in the infobox.--KatieRob27 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: I was going to attempt to upload the image after completing the exercise, but after reading about it, I am not sure if the cover is allowed. The Wikipedia guidelines state that book covers are only allowed if they are very simple images (text) and if the cover contains public domain images. Please let me know if I am missing something.73.78.172.142 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@73.78.172.142: First, be sure you log in, whoever you are. Yeah, this is hit-or-miss. Just try it would be my advice. The worst that happens is that someone removes it. —Grlucas (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: Got it, thank you.Bdokolasa (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons and added it to this article. I had it in the infobox but it was off center and after several tries I was not able to figure out how to adjust it, so it is currently at the top of the page above the infobox.Bdokolasa (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the info box with material relevant to the 2009 release featured in the picture, based on information from the GIL website. Dcb1986 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a picture of the original cover of The Faith of Graffiti to wiki commons here: File:The faith of graffiti, original cover, 1974.pdf. I did this three days ago but it was taken down. The image exists throughout the internet already. I think the original cover should be shown on this pageEBirzin (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize now the err of my way. There are strict guidelines for uploading to the commons which I have not met. But I will, with time and practice.EBirzin (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EBirzin: I agree. I used the image of the original cover in the infobox, and moved the reprint cover lower in the article. Hopefully, it will not be deleted. —Grlucas (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

I added two sources and references to the style section. I used one direct quote to the phrase purple prose because I got it from the news article.

Remember to sign your posts :) Dcb1986 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the date formats in the article/bibliography vary wildly. According to the appropriate section in the Wikipedia Manual_of_Style, dates in the article body text, publication dates, and access/archive dates should all use the same format. At some point during the editing process, (possibly after we are through adding citations, to get it all done at once?) we should work to get everything uniform and consistent. Dcb1986 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcb1986: I think as long as they are consistent, we're OK. I've been fixing errors and inconsistencies as I see them. BTW, I always use the year-month-day format for access dates. —Grlucas (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: Noted. Dcb1986 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a 1974 review of FOG in New York magazine that attributes the A-I style as the result of Mailer's decreased interest in graffiti. It isn't a scholarly analysis and contrasts with the sentences based on later literary sources so it would be worth considering how to structure contradicting(ish) claims. Soudeaforbes (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soudeaforbes: Great! Add it! —Grlucas (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

I updated the information about his 1969 Mayoral election, and added some new material/sources. Dcb1986 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph is in dire need of some citations. Does anyone have that information? L Riley (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) I have proof-read and edited this portion twice now. I fixed a few small grammatical issues and worked on making the sentences connect.Benjamin Fincher (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

Should we have subsections to correspond with the essay's five chapters? Should we include images somehow? Who has the book from the library? Perhaps, at least, list the number of images in each section? We might be able to secure permissions to use a few images. I'll work on that. —Grlucas (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have subsections for each chapter. Can I go ahead and just plug in placeholders for that? L Riley (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think subsections for each chapter would make the article easier to read and understand. Amdoubleu (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the subsections that correlate to the five chapters. @Lizrileymga: I'm not a concesus but Happy for you to add the placeholders. It would be a good indication to others.Bamcclure18 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that subsections for each chapter would be a good idea. I'm wondering what the differences in material would be based on the sub-section locations (background vs analysis). Dcb1986 (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The synopsis in The White Negro did a good job of breaking down the different essay sections. I think a model similar to this would be a good idea.Dcb1986 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcb1986: I like this plan. Go for it, someone. Feel free to use any of my text on my notes. —Grlucas (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: I updated the synopsis to account for each part of the essay. Each part has good potential for expansion. Dcb1986 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on Parts 1 and 2 of the synopsis. Amdoubleu (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While there is a bit more I would like to flesh out, I used my notes and those of Dr. Lucas to add a brief summary of Part 1. I do not think I'm doing my citations correctly, but have an appointment tomorrow for someone to go over them with me in person. However, any information you all might be able to provide outside of the Wiki trainings would be appreciated! Amdoubleu (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep these summaries for the sections very tight and succinct. A 12000-word essay should not have an overblown synopsis. Stick to the essentials. Thanks! —Grlucas (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amdoubleu: In sticking to essentials there may be a bit too much taken from the article in Part 1. I skinnied it up just by removing some of the info but i think the message you present still gets across - just tighter. Please take a look at the edits on my sandbox and let me know what you think? Bamcclure18 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bamcclure18:I think the work you did on Section 1 is great! Dr. Lucas mentioned that I needed to cut it down a bit and you took out most of what I thought could go, so thank you! I will be sure to keep the other section(s) shorter with less direct quotes going forward, but please feel free to make any changes you see fit.Amdoubleu (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like there is a disconnect in the voice/style of the first three synopsis points and the last two.Benjamin Fincher (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amdoubleu: You are welcome to copy and past from my sandbox. I put in a synopsis for section 2 - please fell free to change as needed. My apologies I did not see your previous comments regarding section 2. Hope you don't mind. I'm trying to "be bold". I think the analysis section would do well to be split up by section as well. What do you think? Bamcclure18 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bamcclure18: Ok, great! I didn't want to copy and include it from your Sandbox without you giving the go ahead, but I will do that now. And good timing as I was just trying to figure out if I overlooked someone already having worked on Section 2, haha. No worries at all, being "bold" in this forum is something to which I'm still trying to adapt so your edits are definitely welcome. I think your summary sounds great, but it may still be a little too long? @Grlucas:, should we try to tighten up Section 2 a little more? Amdoubleu (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a summary of Part 4, but it may still be too long. @Bamcclure18:, what do you think? I also did a bit of copyediting throughout the first part of the article today. Amdoubleu (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amdoubleu: I realize they should be concise but I think it is well defined and thus doesn't need to be shortened. Visually I think the part 2 and 5 are big but information-ally parts 1,2,4 and 5 are in good shape. Well part 5 might be border line on neutrality and balanced but its my synopsis and others can update as they see fit. Bamcclure18 (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bamcclure18: I made a few changes to your original post for part 5 in my Sandbox if you want to check it out. Feel free to change it up or copy/paste it into the synopsis. Amdoubleu (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amdoubleu: THank you!... much cleaner, and nuetral. i copied it over. Bamcclure18 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for more information to add to the Synopsis section under Part 3, and I realized that the page numbers are only listed for the article as it is found in the book, "Pieces and Pontifications." Is there a reason all citations are listed only from this source and not from the 2009 publication, which has very different page numbers? I have both copies, so I can cross-reference the page numbers, but for those who have only the 2009 publication which is newer, cheaper, smaller, and doesn't include the lewd topics in "Pieces and Pontifications," should we include page numbers for the 2009 edition as well? It's the same information, but coming from the newer publication? Just curious. Acmunoz14 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acmunoz14: First, "lewd topics"? What do you mean? Second, the PaP version of the essay is what we read for the class—or it's least the one I made available to the class. While it does not contain the photographs, it does contain the complete essay. The original book does not have page numbers, so this was the easiest way that we were all working from the same text. Finally I'm not sure we need to add anything else to synopsis. What were really need are additions to analysis. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: I read everything, so I wanted to see if there would be any relevant author information in the rest of PaP, and I'll just say it wasn't helpful for this project. I did purchase the FOG book, and it was nice to see the photos and see how the entire book is presented. You get a different feel reading the PaP. I see where it was easier for us all to have the same source. You did say to be bold, so I was being bold and I went for it! Acmunoz14 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added associated Wikipedio links to museum and mentioned artists. OrchardBreeze (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

Be sure to keep alphabetical order for references. If a ref doesn't have an author attribution, it's probably not a strong ref. Also, videos have their own template that should be used. —Grlucas (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a couple of spelling errors on the page and added the Hard Hat Riot Wiki citation in the “Background” section. It may be a nice addition to include information/Wiki links/pictures (if we can find something) on the “Welcome to Fear City” pamphlets. Amdoubleu (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the formatting of a couple of references. It might be a good idea to unclude the OCLC numbers (if available) for the references as well. Dcb1986 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pfowler plans: I added two book sources, since we needed some. I believe I successfully linked them using the combination bibliography/Harvard citations style. Both books I found on Galileo, so I included the link to their locations in the database. The links are pretty ugly, so not sure if that was the right call.

I also added a "Style" section, per this resource. A bit scant at the moment but will work on it, assuming this section is relevant. -Pfowler17 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations where requested. Removed my claim that “Faith” is “complex” (in the Style section), after reconsidering. Technically, no source (at least that I read) claimed that specifically. It just described his work in general as “complex” and “daunting.” Also removed “caused MANY to question” and “exploded” in the Background section, because those phrasings were too vague or dramatic. -Pfowler17 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we plan on using the Oxford comma in this article? I prefer to do so, but double checked Manual of Style just in case. The Manual states editors can choose whether or not they would like to use it as long as the article is consistent. Thoughts? Amdoubleu (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amdoubleu: Yes, please use the Oxford comma. —Grlucas (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: Will do! Thank you for the quick response.Amdoubleu (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation/reference (1972 NY Times article) to the background section that deals with the anti-graffiti program, it was marked as CN. I'll also look at trying to find citations for the other CN's. Dcb1986 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped out a couple full references and added them to the bib section, and added the appropriate sfn links. I added some urls to some NY Times links and removed a duplicated reference from the bib section. I also added some url's, ISBN's and JSTOR info to some of the existing references. Dcb1986 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added local anchor (top) and subsequent links at the end of all of the sections to help user navigation. OrchardBreeze (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added new section "Graffiti style and writers from FOG" with two quote boxes and two new sources (Felisbret and Stewart).OrchardBreeze (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OrchardBreeze: Wow, that's quite an addition. I think that most of it, however, does not really work in this article. It's very close to original research, and many editors would see it as such. Maybe you could use some of it under the Background §, or Analysis? Remember, details added or linked to should have something to do directly with FOG. Anything else is tangential or extraneous. Please edit. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

The bulk of our efforts should be in this section. It will take the most work. Don't be lazy. —Grlucas (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would a section on Mailer's political views be appropriate background to include as part of the analysis for this article? Some of the current references discuss his views a bit. I would normally ask for forgiveness instead of permission but as this may be a time consuming task I'm requesting feedback first. Thanks. Bamcclure18 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bamcclure18: I would only do this as it relates to the article here; the background § might be more appropriate for his germane political views. —Grlucas (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birzin links Faith to Mailer's essay The White Negro. This should definitely be included. Who wants to take a look at this source (it's long, but hopefully worth our time):

  • Birzin, Edward (2019). "The Faith of Graffiti: Elevating Graffiti to 'Art'". Subway Art (Dissertation). Philosophie und Geisteswissenschaften. Retrieved 2020-01-17. {{cite thesis}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
@Grlucas: I'll read this source over the next couple days and see what information I can collect from it to contribute to the article. Ereed23 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ereed23: Excellent, thanks. I hope to get to it, too. —Grlucas (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: I finally finished reading Birzin's dissertation. There is so much content to digest just in this one source. I've started a thematic analysis of FOG in my sandbox. I'm also looking into some of the other reviews Birzin references to see if I can find other scholars who agree with the conclusions he's made. Ereed23 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ereed23: Great, stick to the major takeaways from the work as it is an unpublished dissertation. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Jewish grandmother joke in the essay Requesting everyone's help with a resource ... I'd like to include an analysis of the Jewish grandmother joke in our article. The idea of elevating graffiti in print over an in-person experience is Mailer's intent in his essay (plus the included images) to legitimize NYC graffiti as art or at least having a meaningful purpose other than expressing a criminal act or defacing a property. I only found a blog post that supports this idea, but it's not an appropriate resource (http://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2010/09/fog2-close-reading-of-old-joke.html). I worked with MGA Librarian Dana Casper, but neither of us found a similar alternative. If you encounter something in your research reading, please let me know. OrchardBreeze (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OrchardBreeze: I agree the blogger's analysis is strong, and this joke does merit consideration for its metaphorical weight, but blogs should not be used as sources. I'd keep looking, if you intend to include it. —Grlucas (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For organization purposes - Could this section also be divided into the 5 parts of the essay? At this point we seem to have a list of appropriately referenced analysis comments but not an actual analysis.Bamcclure18 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a few resources that write about ancient Jewish Graffiti and reflectivity. KerryMoniqueMcNair (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)kerrymonique[reply]
I think dividing this part up by sections as well might be a good idea. Dcb1986 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
any input from anyone on the suggestion to divide the Analysis into parts like the Synopsis section is divided? Bamcclure18 (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bamcclure18: We certainly could. What subheads do you propose? —Grlucas (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some on how fog is a book on art based off an article from the nyt. I think this is a rich vein of exploration for the analytical portion.Benjamin Fincher (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the fourth paragraph, there is a reference to Birzin (a source article) that lacks itself lacks context, it is the first time he is mentioned. It could probably be improved upon. Dcb1986 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these two sentences: It takes a bold person to defy authority and paint a "tag" in giant letters in a public place. Mailer parallels the actions of the graffiti artist with his own 'tag' of A-I. "Aesthetic Investigator! Make the name A-I for this is about graffiti."[1] Or is it about graffiti? The influence of Mailer's earlier essay The White Negro is unmistakable in his admiration of the "quintessential marriage of cool and style" in the graffiti artists. because it is biased language and irrelevant.Benjamin Fincher (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added analysis of grandmother's joke with a quote box. I still need to fix the Benzon citation and add one for the note about York Ave being close to Gracie Mansion. OrchardBreeze (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OrchardBreeze: While your contribution about the grandmother's joke is very detailed, from my understanding it doesn't belong in the analysis section. If you reference the guidelines we were given for writing articles about books it indicates that the analysis section should focus on the overall impact of the book, its key points, and how other scholars contributed to or refuted the ideas presented. @Grlucas: what are your opinions? Ereed23 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@OrchardBreeze and Ereed23: Yes, while I appreciate the attempt, this addition would be considered original research, so must be removed. If you need a copy of it, I saved it locally. —Grlucas (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas and Ereed23:Thank you for letting me know. OrchardBreeze (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I added a citation for "The Conversation" which mentions Naar's republication of FOG as "The Birth of Graffiti." - Kyle Tucker (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Markerman76[reply]

I added four sources to the bibliography all available online or in the school's library: 2 are biographies on Mailer and his style, and two are on the work of Jon Naar one of the photographersBenjamin Fincher (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found about 12 different possible sources, and have them on my Sandbox page. 4 are at the local library branch and I am going to try and pick them up tomorrow. 6 are at the Macon Branch of the MGA Library, and I will also attempt to get them. Two are electronic only, but are available through Galileo. I attempted to add as much info as I could to the citations, including OCLC Numbers, which look to be a good way to show/reference sources for people not able to access University resources. Dcb1986 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcb1986: Many of these are excellent. Be sure you look at pub dates, too. The Poirier won't have anything, since it was published two years before Faith (though it's an excellent study). –Grlucas (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I am waiting to add all of these sources to the Article until I have a chance to read them and make sure they are relevant. Dcb1986 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found and added two more sources to my Sandbox page. So far I have 13 in total, two of which are apparently digital only. Of the remaining 11 physical books, two are in the local public library available for checkout, two are in the reference section of both the local public library and the MGA Library, and the remaining 9 are available for checkout at the MGA Macon Library. I'm going to attempt to locate and check out as many as I can, and will work this week/weekend on reading them and looking for relevant material. Based on library hours and my working hours, I will also try and spend some time at the library going over the two books in the reference section. Dcb1986 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcb1986: You needn't do all that work yourself. Anyone else want to help? —Grlucas (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the Macon Campus library and found all 9 of the books there, three were duds. I also found four more possible sources that look promising. I checked all of them out and will work to go through them and find appropriate content. I also went to the Ga Public Library in Warner Robins and checked out three more books, and got material from a fourth set of books in the reference section. So far I have 13 books to go through, as well as two more online sources.Dcb1986 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I picked up the Lennon - Norman Mailer A Double Life - it was the only option from Gwinnett County PL. I'll check what's available at GGC. Bamcclure18 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through most of these books now, and removed about half from my list of references on my Sandbox page. Some of them did not contain any useful information, or anything relevant to this essay, and some were just bibliography-type books. The 6 or so remaining have some references to Faith, but they may also contain information useful to the author background info and info possibly relevant to the analysis section. Dcb1986 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added three more sources about the 1969 NYC Mayoral election to the bib section and linked them to the background section. Dcb1986 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books are also available online at archive.org. I have several "borrowed" that I am reading through for more info. L Riley (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizrileymga: Yes. This is a fabulous resource that I use all the time. Thanks for posting. —Grlucas (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizrileymga: Thanks you guys... That is a new resource for me. Bamcclure18 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the new sourceKerryMoniqueMcNair (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)kerrymonique I would like to add resources for draft: Faith of Graffiti but would like your feedback, User:Kerrymonique/sandbox#sources[reply]

@Kerrymonique: Hey Kerry - be sure to enter your responses on a new line so they don't get lost. I think the idea you present in your sandbox is excellent. Possibly it should go in the analysis of section 3 instead of the synopsis? Bamcclure18 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grlucas: Dr. Lucas - Interested to know your feedback on Kerry's info? Thank youBamcclure18 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bamcclure18 and Kerrymonique: Well, I'm not sure what you're proposing. I'd be careful about getting too far away from Mailer's essay. Maybe if you write what you were thinking of adding to the article, I would have a bitter idea about how to respond. —Grlucas (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Yes, thanks for your feedback! I will do that--KerryMoniqueMcNair (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)@Grlucas and Kerrymonique:[reply]

Aren't all footnotes supposed to be in sfn format? If someone will confirm, I will work on correcting those that aren't. 03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lizrileymga: Yes, that's correct. We need to be careful to use page numbers, too. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References have all been changed to SFN. Don't we need footnotes in the Lead?L Riley (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizrileymga: Footnotes can be used in the lead, but are not necessary unless it presents new information not sourced in the article (which it should not). Also, sources from staff writers (i.e., no author attribution) cannot seem to use shortened footnotes. We may have to use the standard <ref> . . . </ref> approach for those. —Grlucas (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of @DCasper79: I finally figured out how to add the citations in the correct format. Amdoubleu (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hesitate to reach out for assistance. I will keep an eye on the talk page. Hope that everyone is doing well with their research so far. DCasper79 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Thanks Dana, I appreciate all your help. Looking forward to talking with you on wednesday!KerryMoniqueMcNair (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC) kerrymonique[reply]

@DCasper79: Thanks for your help. —Grlucas (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

The paragraph that is in the Background section and starts with "In 1972" seems redundant. I think the information in the two paragraphs below it cover the same info. Also, the "In 1972" paragraph has no citations. Can it be eliminated? L Riley (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizrileymga: Sure, and you needn't ask. You're an editor. Just go for it. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1/30/20 Update[edit]

@JenniferMGA, Bdokolasa, Lizrileymga, LauraT2020, Dcb1986, KatieRob27, OrchardBreeze, Amdoubleu, Benjamin Fincher, Acmunoz14, Qtwinbush45, Pfowler17, Ereed23, Bamcclure18, Kerrymonique, Ab1g81aL93, and Markerman76: Good work, all. The article is coming along.

Please begin to integrate your additions in the context of what's written. For example, be sure your familiar with what's around before adding anything. Do you need a new paragraph, or can your addition be added to an existing one? We must read as well as edit, please. This becomes more crucial as we add to the article. Also, we do not have to discuss all edits; if you see something that needs to be fixed, just do it.

Please use shortened footnotes. There should be no full references in the Citations §—only in the Bibliography. If you're not sure how to do this, just look to see how others have done it, please. It really is pretty easy. Also, let's start removing unused or tertiary references, please, e.g., Wolff.

Mark minor edits as minor, please see Help:Minor edit. Not all of you are doing this and you should be. Please proofread before saving. This will save everyone time and energy. Leaving obvious errors in mechanics and style is not very thoughtful.

Someone (I'm not sure who) submitted our draft for review. This is premature, but it should not interfere with our continued editing. However, submitting it early may cause the article to be rejected since it's obviously not complete. I wish you had not done this.

Thanks, all. Keep it up! —Grlucas (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

I made some copyedits to the "Reception" section for clarity and flow, but, while reading the NYT review by Robins, I came away with a different understanding of that review than the person who wrote about it originally. IMO, the review is more focused on Mailer's failure (and lack of qualification) to write as an art historian. Thoughts on how to characterize that review?

I think "Claes Oldenburg came out as a supporter of graffiti art in 1973, claiming the art brought brightness and excitement to an otherwise "gray" and industrialized city. Beardsley agrees: though graffiti may be a criminal act, in some cases helps improve the aesthetic of the otherwise bland architecture." needs some additional context or to be rewritten to make it clear that Oldenburg is quote in FOG. I haven't looked at the Beardsley review yet so it would also be nice to know if Beardsley is agreeing with Mailer(A-I) agreeing with Oldenburg or if he's agreeing with Oldenburg directly. Soudeaforbes (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Note on Revision[edit]

All, if you are adding words to a sentence, you are likely not making it better. Before you "revise," please remember this guideline. This could also work as a guideline for copyediting. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Mainspace and GA Nomination[edit]

@JenniferMGA, Lizrileymga, Dcb1986, KatieRob27, OrchardBreeze, Amdoubleu, Benjamin Fincher, Acmunoz14, Qtwinbush45, Pfowler17, Ereed23, Bamcclure18, Kerrymonique, Ab1g81aL93, Markerman76, and Soudeaforbes: I've removed the AfC tag from the draft of the articles, as Shalor (Wiki Ed) suggested we take it live. I agree. This does not mean we'll stop improving it (we have a month left in the class), but it will be under a bit more scrutiny and other editors might "help" us out.

Also, I would like us to begin the Good Article (GA) nomination process very soon. If you'd like to look at what this means (see the link), maybe one or two of you could volunteer to start it? Discussion? Let me know, and again that for the great work. —Grlucas (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grlucas: Just did this, I believe. Please edit if the template or category is wrong. --Pfowler17 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pfowler17: Thank you for proceeding with the Good Article nomination. I'm curious to see what kind of feedback we receive during the review process. Ereed23 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pfowler17: Great. We may need it moved to an article first. Let me have a look. I do not see it on the nominations page, but I (or Shalor (Wiki Ed)) will put it in the main space before we nominate it. —Grlucas (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOG Now Live W00t! — 2/12 Update[edit]

@JenniferMGA, Lizrileymga, Dcb1986, KatieRob27, OrchardBreeze, Amdoubleu, Benjamin Fincher, Acmunoz14, Qtwinbush45, Pfowler17, Ereed23, Bamcclure18, Kerrymonique, Markerman76, and Soudeaforbes: Well, our article is now live. I want to thank everyone for his/her fine work. For those of you who didn't put as much work in, there's still time. Here's what I still see that needs attention:

  • More analysis could be added to the analysis section.
  • More images could be found and added, I bet. Like in the synopsis § to illustrate some of the items Mailer discusses?
  • Are there any internal links missing? Please link only the first occurrence of something.
  • When you copyedit and revise, try not to add. As we've been learning, more is rarely better. Many of us are comma-happy, for instance. Be sure you know the comma rules—any rules really—before adding. Check WP:MOS if you are not sure—especially with quotation marks and punctuation. Let's get all of this perfect.
  • Are there more details that could be added to the info box?
  • How is the article's lead? Does it need additions?
  • Specific page numbers should be used in the synopsis, not ranges. Cf. ¶2. There is no space in front of citations. (I think I corrected most of these.)

What have I missed? I know you are working diligently on your individual articles now. Please update me on its talk page, so I can comment and assist. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC). Dr. Lucus, yes trying finish but still doing edits.KerryMoniqueMcNair (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Grlucas[reply]

I updated the infobox and added a couple internal links, and removed several duplicated internal links. Dcb1986 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few missing links for Europe, World War II and Democratic Primary. -Kyle Tucker (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Kyle Tucker[reply]

publication and reception[edit]

I have edited the text. There has been rampant misuse of punctuation with quotation marks. Half the quotes have the punctuation in the quotation marks and half have punctuation outside the quotation marks. I have gone through and moved the commas and periods to within the quotation marks due to this being the academic standard for most major citation styles.

@Benjamin Fincher: Once again, please see WP:MOS#Quotation marks. This policy does not correspond to how we usually use punctuation and quotation mark placement in academic writing. Everyone should learn the Wikipedia policy, please. I have corrected these many times in this article on several instances. Again, please see the policy before making comprehensive changes. —Grlucas (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the guidelines used by Wikipedia the first time. Apologies. Benjamin Fincher (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these two sentences This omission might be due to Mailer's interest in his own fame and opinions rather than graffiti itself.

Claes Oldenburg came out as a supporter of graffiti art in 1973, claiming the art brought brightness and excitement to an otherwise "gray" and industrialized city.[62] Beardsley agrees: though graffiti may be a criminal act, in some cases helps improve the aesthetic of the otherwise bland architecture.[63] due to the nature of the phrasing. In the first sentence, it appears as though the writer is interpreting Mailer's intentions which violate Wikipedias rules. In the second sentence, the content seems irrelevant to the wiki article and topic.Benjamin Fincher (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjamin Fincher: Thank you for your edits. Some I would consider further, as they seemed to change the meaning of sentences. Your effort to remove editorial-like content is appreciated; we all should be doing this. —Grlucas (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjamin Fincher: I do believe including Beardsley's reaction to the work is important in the reception section as he was a notable scholar of aesthetics at the time. I have a section in my sandbox that summarizes his views on FOG. Ereed23 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjamin Fincher: Perhaps I should rephrase the "This omission might..."? I added that sentence but that was the perspective from Robin's review.Soudeaforbes (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Faith of Graffiti/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 22:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

  • 81 photographs — The number of photographs should be mentioned in the body of the article as well.
    • Done.
  • twelve-thousand-word essay — Ditto.
    • I just removed this, since I could not find the original source for the specific word count.
  • the ... essay explored the political and artistic implications of graffiti — That's a pretty short summary of the work. Can it be expanded any in the lead?
    • Added a bit more. to the lead.
  • Anything worth adding to the lead about the work's reception?

Background

  • Vandalism, theft, and murders were so prevalent that "Welcome to Fear City" safety pamphlets were distributed to tourists. — This is interesting, but lacks context. From the Gothamist article that the Guardian article links to, it is clear that this was really just a way of New York's finest trying to put pressure on the local government to avoid layoffs.
    • More context added.
  • Most New Yorkers and city officials shared Mayor John Lindsay's belief that graffiti was defacing their city — Too strong: the source says only "many, perhaps most, New Yorkers of the early 1970s shared Mayor Lindsay’s view of graffiti as 'a dirty shame'" (emphasis added).
    • Agreed. Fixed.
  • it had cost more than $300,000 per year to erase the graffiti. — "had cost", or "cost"? The NYT article is from 1971, which suggests the official was speaking about current costs. And given that he's from the MTA, is he talking about the city's costs, of only the MTA's costs of removing graffiti from subways, subway stations, and the like?
    • Yes, fixed.
  • Mayor Lindsay announced an anti-graffiti program — When?
    • Added.
  • In 1969, Norman Mailer unsuccessfully campaigned for the Democratic nomination for Mayor of New York City — Perhaps a brief introduction to Mailer is due here; what was he best known for at the time?
    • Added.
  • Mailer urged the audience to form a "guerrilla graffiti squad" to write the campaign slogan "No More Bullshit" throughout New York City. — Was this actually a serious campaign, or more a la Joe Exotic?
    • Indeed. Added nuance that is part of the source material.
  • fourth in the Democratic Primary — How many votes, and/or what percent?
  • After the tepid reception of his biography of Marilyn Monroe, — What year are we in? This is after his run for mayor?
    • 1973. Added.
  • his agent Scott Meredith was finally able to get him $50,000 for his work. — Why $15,000 more than what Mailer had agreed to?
    • Meredith was his agent. That was his job. —Grlucas (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

  • This interview sheds light — Is this one interview with four people, or four interviews with one person each?
  • The "name" is subversive — What is the "name"? Their graffiti name (e.g., CAY 161 or JUNIOR 161), or something else?
    • Their tag, or graffiti name. Clarified.
  • Part 4 details a conversation between A-I and the outgoing mayor of New York, John Lindsay — Did Mailer actually interview him?
    • Yes, the entirety of part 4 is about their interview. —Grlucas (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style

  • as seen in his non-traditional biographies such as The Executioner's Song, The Fight, and Marilyn: A Biography. — Anything that can be used as a cite?
    • Added sources.
  • This blending of the subjective and objective allowed for a more nuanced and complex narrative, engaging readers in subtle new ways. — I'm not sure what this means. Replace the words "narrative" and "readers," and you could almost have an airy-yet-meaningless description of wine.
    • Clarified? Rewritten at least.
  • Eliot Fremont-Smith — Who's that?
    • A critic. Removed.
  • Mailer's waning interest in the topic of graffiti despite its popularity in contemporary art circles. — Why was Mailer's interest waning? If Mailer (and contemporary art circles) had an opinion on graffiti before this book, that could stand mention in the "Background" section.
    • It wasn't. This was more of a commentary on Mailer's view of journalism. Corrected. —Grlucas (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

  • Mailer's admiration of graffiti artists — But wasn't his interest waning?
    • No, see above, last §.
  • Nonetheless, the essay is described as the first "epistemological legitimisation" of the art of graffiti." — By Lennon? If so, I'd say "Nonetheless, Lennon described the essay as..." Also, quotations need inline citations.
    • No, by Bonadio. Fixed.
  • and a connection to the beginnings of art and its connection with the human psyche. — Seems like a fragment.
    • Yeah, fixed.
  • In Existential Battles, Laura Adams — "In her book Existential Battles"?
    • Fixed. Dcb1986 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually think "book" is implied by the italics making "her book" redundant, but that's just me, I guess? —Grlucas (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Cowan ... John Seelye — Who are they?
    • Literary critics.
  • The "I" is a Roman numeral one and "A" is for "Advertisement" suggesting A-I is an advertisement for Mailer himself. — Did Mailer actually say anything supporting this interpretation, or is it just a random idea that someone tossed out?
  • Mailer presented art as a series of trends not part of individual expression, and that these trends are not valued in American society. — Something's grammatically off with this sentence.
    • Rewritten.
  • Mailer, too, linked graffiti with contemporary art and its performativity. — What's the "too" doing in that sentence?
    • Gone.
  • The last paragraph here is quite confusing. It nonchalantly introduces the concept of "hip" in the first sentence, then only explains it in the second. Then, the third sentence introduces the "Hipster," which, it seems, is related to "hip" but perhaps distinct (or perhaps not). And just what is the importance of "hip"? "Cay 161 became an exemplar of hip within the graffiti community" seems to suggest that it is a recognized (valued?) trait, but that's only implied. Finally, the last sentence appears to be grammatically flawed (did Mailer do the defining, or Birzin? The way the sentence is structured, it would be Birzin), and confusing: Who is this Birzin, who is "Taki 183", and for that matter, has "the birth of the graffiti movement" been previously discussed?
    • This ¶ links Faith to Mailer's 1957 essay The White Negro through Birzin's dissertation. I tried to clarify, but it may need further work. —Grlucas (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publication

  • The work appeared as a short essay in Esquire and as a book by Praeger Publishers. — At the same time?
    • Yes.
  • The project was conceived by Lawrence Schiller with photographs by Jon Naar and design by Mervyn Kurlansky. — This is already discussed in "Background".
    • Quite right. Removed from background §.
  • The book was also published in London — When?
  • How long was the book? I'm a bit confused by why this article variously terms it a book and an essay.
    • It was both. Advice for clarification? —Grlucas (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • The work was considered controversial — Who considered it controversial?
    • Initial reviewers, critics, and readers. Dearborn, who is cited, is general, too.
  • "Who better than the author of Advertisements for Myself to analyze calligraphic assertions of personal glory?" — Whose words?
    • Fixed.
  • However, glorification is well within Mailer's usual writing style ... Mailer seems to ... consider graffiti as an "indigenous art form" to be celebrated. — This starts off by saying glorification was part of Mailer's style, but then ends up saying he indeed thought graffiti artists should be glorified.
    • Fixed, but it may need further help.
  • Though he acknowledges the social power of graffiti, Ian Brunskill writes — Is "he" Mailer, or Brunskill?
    • Clarified.
  • [The essay] nonetheless set the terms in which graffiti has been written about ever since. However, Brunskill wrote, Mailer was committed to defending graffiti as an art form and supporting the movements artist as revolutionaries. — I'm not sure I follow. How does the second sentence relate to the first?

References

  • 6–7, 9: These don't need retrieval dates. You're citing the underlying works—printed newspapers that will not change depending on the date they are accessed—so they don't serve a purpose.
  • Generally speaking, there's some inconsistency in date formats: both "YYYY-MM-DD" and "Month Day, Year" are used. I'd suggest using the latter uniformly, but either way, only one should be used.

Bibliography

  • Adams 1976: What's "Ohio UP"?
  • Generally speaking, the ISBNs could be hyphenated.
  • Again, there's some inconsistency in date formats.
    • Fixed.
  • Austin 2001 is included in the bibliography, but never cited to in the article.
    • That's why I called the § Bibliography rather than "Works Cited." It gives more room for refs that might be valuable but were not necessarily used in the article.
  • Baker 2015: Any reason this is included in the bibliography rather than in the references, where other web-based pieces are?
    • The logic here is that since we used shortened footnotes, references with authors use sfn, those that do not use a standard <ref> tag.
  • Beardsley 1975: The DOI is redundant, since it links to JSTOR. Also, the "– via JSTOR" isn't strictly speaking needed, since "JSTOR 428378" gives that away."
  • Brooks 1997: Missing publisher location.
  • Brunskill 2013: Any reason this one, but not other web magazine pieces, lacks a retrieval date?
    • Nope. Added.
  • Lennon 1977: Same comment re "– via JSTOR".
  • McKinley 2017: I'd spell out "University".
  • Mosser 2009: Is there an ISSN or similar identifier for the publication that you could add?
    • Yes. Added.
  • Perlmutter 1972, Roberts 2007, & Robins 1974: Any reason these are in the bibliography, rather than in the references, where other NYT pieces are?
    • See Baker above.
  • Richardson 1969: Where was this published (what magazine, etc.)?
    • Added.
  • Seelye 1974: Is there an ISSN or similar identifier for the publication that you could add?
  • Thompson 2009: The OCLC isn't really needed in addition to the ISBN.

Overall

  • @Usernameunique: Thank you for the thorough reading and review. I have never done this process before; do I need to respond to the individual items above? Or just begin making article corrections? Both? Thanks! —Grlucas (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure, Grlucas. Generally speaking it's best to both make the corrections to the article and to the individual points here giving a sense of change has been made; as an example, here's another (almost complete) review. And of course, feel free to note if you disagree with, or are having difficulty implementing, any of the above comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Usernameunique: OK, thank you. I'll get on this ASAP, and I appreciate the advice and examples. Cheers! —Grlucas (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Usernameunique: I believe your questions have been addressed above and in the article. Let me know what else needs attention, or what I further messed up. Thanks again. —Grlucas (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dcb1986 and Grlucas, apologies for the delay in responding. I've given it another read and made a few edits—it looks good, and I'm passing it now. Nicely work with this article; it's cool to see well-built articles on minor but interesting subjects, let alone as the result of a team project. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Usernameunique: Thank you for your time, consideration, and hard work here. I have enjoyed the process and would like to do more—both from improving articles and reviewing them. I think the latter would make me a much better writer. I appreciate it. —Grlucas (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Faith_of_Graffiti&oldid=1222321674"