Talk:Cover-up tattoo

Untitled

Cover-ups isn't just about covering old tattoos but also scars, blemishes and other unwanted features on the body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.42.237 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC) <-- forgot to log in Chosig (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Chosig: Very belatedly,  Fixed! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Veterans with covered scars

I wanted to add that some veterans with war scars choose to get tattoos to conceal their scars and as part of their psychological healing process, but so far I've only found two decent sources, and they're about individuals rather than a pattern: "Iraqi troops seek tattoos to cover their scars of war" and Warriors, Tattoos, and the Stories They Tell (page 30). Dreamyshade (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also coming up empty. Another demographic that would be nice to mention, is transmasculine people getting top surgery. We mention mastectomies but the sources are all about cancer-related ones. However, of the sources I've been able to find, all scholarly discussion of transmasculine top surgery cover-ups is either about reconstructive tattoos (which this article semi-artificially excludes in scope to avoid duplicating Medical tattoo) or is ambiguous. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

GAN?

@Dreamyshade: I'm thinking this is about ready for WP:GAN. 50 refs, including scholarly ones in multiple disciplines; good prose and flow; broad coverage; and, dare I say, very well illustrated. Do you have any outstanding concerns, or anything else you'd like to add? And would you like to be a co-nominator? It's been a pleasure working with you either way (if a bit asynchronously), and I'm happy to handle it on my own, so entirely up to you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, please go ahead! You've done great work on it. I don't have a lot of wiki-capacity right now so I won't co-nominate, but I look forward to seeing the results. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cover-up tattoo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tamzin (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

    @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)

    @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)

    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)

• 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)

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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

• Merge the two short paragraphs about self-harm cover-ups.

   Done -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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)
    • 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)

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)

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)
• Commonscat link should be in an external links section - see MOS:LAYOUTEL
  •  Done -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 14:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A tattoo depicting a ladder

• ... that some cover-up tattoos incorporate scars into the design (example pictured)? Source: Givissi, Kornilia (2016). Splits and integrations: A phenomenological exploration of self-harm marks and scars (Thesis). pp. 105–107.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bäckadräkten; Template:Did you know nominations/Verteba Cave

Improved to Good Article status by Tamzin (talk) and Dreamyshade (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 22 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC).

• Hi Tamzin, what a GA! The hook is interesting and referenced just as well as the rest of the paragraphs. There isn't any copyvio or close paraphrasing. Image related to the topic and used in the article. 2 QPQ provided. Congratulations! --2x2leax (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)