Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Graffiti

Graffiti

Article is no longer a featured article.

There are no adequate references. What was previously known as the "References and additional sources" was comprised of film documentaries and general websites, many of which are image galleries. There do not seem to be any print or scholarly sources used, and I'm confident there are plenty on this subject. Additionally, inline citations aren't used, so it is difficult to verify anything that is said.
As a consequence of lack of adequate sources and inline citations, the text is littered with generalizations, weasel words, and what may be considered non-NPOV statements. Good example:

"Most of those who practice graffiti art wish to distance themselves from gang graffiti. Differences in both form and intent exist: graffiti art aims at self-expression and creativity, and may involve highly stylized letterforms drawn with markers, or cryptic and colorful spray paint murals on walls, buildings, and even freight trains. Graffiti artists strive to improve their art, which constantly changes and progresses. Gang graffiti, on the other hand, functions to mark territorial boundaries, and therefore does not transcend a gang's neighborhood; in the eyes of lovers of graffiti-art, it does not presuppose artistic intent."

The article's coverage of the subject is incomplete. There are barely any sociological, psychological, or aesthetic/critical interpretations, and I'm pretty sure significant academic research has been devoted to this subject. Graffiti is clearly more complex a subject than history and legality.
The lead is inadequate. Most of it is devoted to etymology.
~~There are too many external links within the prose.~~—jiy (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, the sourcing is inadequate. More importantly, the writing is severely disjointed and disorganized. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove as per Christopher. If anyone wants to see a valid warning posted on a talk page, this one is it. Thank you Jiy. Tony 01:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]