Talk:Gypsy Restaurant and Velvet Lounge/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Disambiguation[edit]

Images[edit]

Resolved
  • OK. Everything checks out. My only concern centers around the possibility of finding a live, people-oriented nighttime shot, possibly on flickr. If a free one exists, the signage image could be made smaller to accommodate it. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. A long time ago, in a dive bar far away, I worked in a bar like this. I can't stop kicking myself for not taking photos, they would probably have won awards. :) Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to see photos of the bar from the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. Maybe one day...! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Resolved
  • The infobox says it was established "before 1949", but the sign on the door on the Willamette Week website says "Est. 1947".[1] Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you consider that reliable, I'm game. Also, that is consistent with this edit made by someone who appears to have a connection to the business. However, I reverted this edit and a couple others because no reliable sourcing was included. ----Another Believer (Talk) 05:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. Do you think that there may be other sources supporting the 1947 establishment date? Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pretty thorough in my research. I have to say, though, I am comfortable going with 1947 if that is what restaurant signage says, and it is better than "before 1949". ----Another Believer (Talk) 05:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why you aren't using the owner fields? Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Resolved
  • The trivia competition mentioned in the body may be notable enough to mention in the lead based on the significance given to it by this source. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restaurant was known for serving fishbowl alcoholic beverages, for its 1950s-era furnishings, and for hosting karaoke and goldfish racing tournaments.
    • This sounds very similar to the Fodor's wording, especially the "1950s-era furnishings" phrase. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does removing "era" address your concern? If so, done. ----Another Believer (Talk) 05:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changing something so small doesn't usually eliminate close paraphrasing. There's also the wording and structure. For example, before I even checked the sources, the unusual structure of the sentence was a red flag. Why don't you leave it and come back to it tomorrow? If necessary, I can provide several examples for improvement. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I thought it was just the "1950's-era furnishings" phrase in particular. I don't find these two sentences to be all that similar (I bolded the similarities), but if you have specific suggestions or concerns I'd be happy to address: "Popular with young adults, the restaurant was known for serving fishbowl alcoholic beverages, for its 1950s furnishings, and for hosting karaoke, trivia competitions and goldfish racing tournaments" vs. "This boisterous bar serves cocktails in giant fishbowls (for sharing), has retro 1950s-era furnishings, and karaoke at 9 pm Tuesday through Saturday nights." To me, the lead sentence just follows the order of importance. I'll revisit tomorrow. ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Structurally, the paraphrasing was too close, but you've recently made a number of changes that makes it less of a problem. However, in a writing course, it would probably not be acceptable. For example, there's no reason to repeat the word "furnishings" nor present the list of features in the same way as Fodors (fishbowls, furnishings, karaoke). If I were the writer, I would not only rewrite it, but I would eliminate the similarity by removing each feature from the single sentence and incorporating it into the lead section. For example, I would talk about the decor in a separate sentence, probably in relation to its date of establishment, since the two have an implicit relationship, without using the word "furnishings". Then, in relation to the structure, I would talk about how the upper level has a dining area and bar, while the lower area has a lounge and a bar. Then, in relation to just describing the bar, I would mention the type of drinks (fishbowls) and in relation to the lounge, karaoke. That eliminates close paraphrasing, both in language and in structure. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

Resolved
  • The narrative structure of this section seems random and haphazard. Have you thought about writing a more logical description that groups like with like, related items in their context, in line with the expectation of the reader? I can give examples, but I'm interested in what you, the nominator, think of the current setup. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, well? I wrote this article the same way I write other Wikipedia articles. This section is what I believe to be a description of how the establishment was perceived by reliable sources. It provides a location, how its recognized, describes the customer demographic, its interior decor, its unique features (fishbowl drinks and goldfish racing), the food served, and hours of operation. This is pretty much what I would expect to read about other establishments, too. I've asked WikiProject Oregon members to review the article, and it has also received a copy edit but the guild of copy editors. But I am all ears if you have specific concerns or requests. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I asked is because I thought you might see what I'm seeing. Since you're not, I'll very briefly explain: you start off by introducing the location, and then launch into a description using lots of quotes. But you repeatedly mention the decor and karaoke at both the beginning and at the end. Can you figure out a way to group both in the same area, perhaps by focusing more on paraphrasing? Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Located at 625 Northwest 21st Avenue in the Nob Hill area of Portland's Northwest District neighborhood,[1] Gypsy was a "boisterous",[1] "disco-balled Nob Hill dive", recognizable by its bouncers, karaoke, and "wobbling smokers".[2] The Portland Mercury said the restaurant was a "kinda retro-y bar'... popular with a young college-y, drinkin', party crowd".[3] One Portland resident described the club as "the kind of place where you can go with your sophisticated friends and look at the Daddy-O decor. Or you can go on a date and snuggle in a corner where the lighting is low. And if you want to meet new people you can stroll through there and see people whose faces you've never seen before, which is a rare thing in Portland."[2] The establishment was also known for serving fishbowl alcoholic beverages,[1] and in its final years, for hosting goldfish racing tournaments.[2] The interior featured 1950s-era furnishings and "pinball-panel" wall decorations.[1][3] Gypsy served soup, sandwiches, and full entrees.[3] Karaoke was available beginning at 9 pm on Tuesday through Saturday evenings.[1]

I made a couple edits to improve flow. I removed the "Nob Hill dive" part of the quote to avoid redundancy and allow linking to "dive bar". I moved the interior decor sentence up a paragraph and allowed the extended quote description to stand alone. I think the detail re: hours of karaoke is a detail that should be at the end of the section. These changes are not substantial, but I do think the flow is improved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources allude to a building layout that I don't see reflected in the article. Apparently, there was an upper and a lower level distinguishing between a dining area and "upper bar" and a nightclub and lower lounge bar. It would make much more sense, therefore, to describe the venue based on its layout, since the features would follow and link to the layout in a logical fashion. For example, if you were to describe the food, you talk about it in terms of the upper dining area; if you were to discuss karoke and music, you could talk about it in terms of the lower lounge level. That makes much more sense. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are you reading about this layout? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll try and find the sources. For example, an image gallery referred to the two bars as the upper and lower bars, and the two seating areas as the upper dining area and the lower lounge. I believe there was also outside seating in front during the day (possibly at night) but I could be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Menu and drink samples in these photos. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what to do with this. I have never seen FourSquare used as a source for anything on Wikipedia. ----Another Believer (Talk) 05:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say it was a source, I was merely showing a sample of what can be discussed (source is below). Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good source about the restaurant and food here. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please talk about the description of the actual restaurant here? For example, was there an outdoor cafe area? What about the dining area and bar in the upper part of the restaurant and the nightclub (lounge) and second bar in the lower part? Walk the reader through the structure, please. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, I don't actually know the layout of the restaurant. I just constructed the article based on what I could find in sources. Can you show me where you are reading about the upper dining area and the lower lounge area? Clearly I failed to notice something which you've picked up on... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind, there is little difference between the "reception" quotes in the description section and the "reception" quotes in the "Reception". This is yet another good reason why you should change the name of the "Reception" section to some other feature, such as food and drink. Currently, in the "Description" sectiton, you've got "reception" content from The Portland Mercury and Willamette Week. Describe the club and the patrons, but think about moving the features to already existing sections. For example, "Gypsy served soup, sandwiches, and full entrees" would work well in the current "Reception" section if you renamed it to "food and drink" or "restaurant". That way you can refer to the restaurant in the description, but the type of food and drink served in that featured section that you already have plenty of content about. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Resolved
  • In 1994, Charlie Hales and Vera Katz, then serving as city commissioner and mayor, respectively, sought to close the business due to assaults, signs of drunkenness by patrons, and noise complaints.

Is there anything else needing to be addressed from this section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll let you know when it's done. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the structure of this section doesn't benefit the reader. Currently, the "History" of the bar has one subsection, "Concept Entertainment". Instead of doing it this way, think about simply mentioning the transfer of the ownership and the tree limb incident and subseqent sale at the end of the history section. Then, begin several new sections (not subsections) on the alcohol policy influence, hosted events. This will greatly enhance the readability, the story narrative, and will hold the interest of the reader. You can also turn the "Reception" section into a "Food and drink" section. By presenting the information in this way, you highlight all the major features of the venue in easily accessible sections, giving the reader the ease and ability to find relevant content. For a very basic example of what this would look like, please see this test diff. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer the current layout, which keeps content in chronological order and clearly differentiates pre- and post-Concept Entertainment ownership. However, since you recommend a structure change, I will look into creating an Events section to separate info re: specific events/activities from the general history of the business.  Doing... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's really not much to "look into". It took me 15 seconds to create it in the test diff linked above. Please notice, the chronology isn't diminished, but actually strengthened when you merge the owner info into history as I did in the diff. Furthermore, the bar was independently owned for 45 years, while Concept owned it for only 22. Considering this evidence, and the ease of readability when adding sections, can you expand on why you oppose it and prefer using the ownership as a subsection? As a reader, this doesn't make sense to me. Venue articles like this one generally highlight features, in his case an overall history, the political influence, events, and food and drink. The current layout buries these features into one history section divided by an owner. This defeats the purpose of using sections to highlight the features. Have you looked at any featured and GA venue articles for ideas or guidance? Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you feel about this diff and the article's current structure? I removed the Concept Entertainment heading (actually, I did this before reading your response above, which means we are on the same page) and moved the Events content to its own section. (Most of it was already in order, but I did remove the sentence about Second Life back up to the History section.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I feel that it is a huge improvement. I'll have more to say in a bit...thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1994, Charlie Hales and Vera Katz, then serving as city commissioner and mayor, respectively, sought to close the business due to assaults, public intoxication by patrons, and noise complaints.
    • You've got a lot of needless words there. Try: "In 1994, city commissioner Charlie Hales and mayor Vera Katz sought to close the Gypsy due to repeated reports of assaults, public intoxication, and noise complaints." Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Hursick continued to own and operate the restaurant until about 1993...Ownership of Gypsy transferred to Concept Entertainment in 1992.
    • Problem detected. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Viriditas (talk)[reply]
      • Looks like there is a little confusion there, but perhaps I could change the text to: "John Hursick continued to own and operate the restaurant until the early 1990s…" so that it is still accurate but not contradictory? ----Another Believer (Talk) 05:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever works. Do you think he helped operate the restaurant during the transition period, hence the confusion? That would make sense. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • He may have operated after the transfer, but still seems contradictory that both parties could be owners at the same time. I think changing to early 1990s is best. ----Another Believer (Talk) 05:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gypsy Restaurant and Lounge was established in 1947. In 1948, The Oregonian published an advertisement for business, promoting an eight-course dinner for $1.25, between the hours of 4 pm and 3 am. The restaurant's location was described as "next to 21st Avenue Theater", between Northwest Hoyt and Irving Streets. In 1955, the paper reported that $1,000 was stolen from an unlocked safe stored at the Gypsy Restaurant, located at 612 Northwest 21st Avenue....In 1963, the restaurant and lounge moved to its final location, at the intersection of Northwest 21st Avenue and Hoyt Street, across from Cinema 21.[6][7
    • As the reader, I find this a very strange, circuitous way to establish the location address. It isn't clear that location changed at all. Did the location change from 625 Northwest 21st Avenue? Can you clean this up a bit, please? I understand you are trying to establish the location based on other content, but this isn't really the way to do it. Focus on the location specifically. And as I suggested previously above, anything involving food and drink (" an eight-course dinner for $1.25") should appear in a food and drink section (you are currently using it for "reception" instead). This makes for much more of a pleasant read and establishes a story narrative neatly and logically contained within each feature. In other words, if you are going to talk about location, talk about just the location, regardless of the related content. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The restaurant moved from 612 Northwest 21st (next to Cinema 21) to 625 Northwest 21st (across from Cinema 21). I think the updated wording makes more sense, but I'll let you be the judge. And I disagree about converting the Reception section to a "Food and drink" section. The menu should be part of the description of the establishment. The Reception section does address food, but also addresses the overall atmosphere. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether you called it food and drink or "restaurant", isn't this content similar enough to highlight the food and drink aspects in its own section? Why would you call it "reception"? Not a big deal, however. I don't see why the menu would part of the description. A description of a venue like this describes the location, structural layout, decor, and type of restaurant and lounge. Then the other sections go into that featured detail. Anyway, we're obviously not going to agree, so let's agree to disagree. I believe this review is close to finished anyway. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1963, the restaurant and lounge moved to its final location, at the intersection of Northwest 21st Avenue and Hoyt Street, across from Cinema 21.
    • I don't see why this leads the second paragraph when it follows naturally at the end of the first. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artwork on the interior walls included a large and colorful painting depicting a gypsy camp, and an "attractive" nude called Dian by Grace Harlow, a painter and former student of Louis Bunce. The "New Gypsy", which also featured "mottled" iridescent red windows that were translucent, could seat 150 guests and included a banquet area.
  • According to a 1973 Oregonian obituary, Gypsy Restaurant was then owned and operated by Stacy Gurganus.[9] An obituary published by The Oregonian in 1987 said that Gertrude "Tiny" Hursick of Lake Oswego co-owned Gypsy and Gordon's 7-Up Bar, also located in Northwest Portland.
    • This is a rare example of excessive attribution. I say rare because excessive attribution is, in most cases, a good thing, especially when we are dealing with quotes or controversial material. But when you are just trying to mention the owners in relation to the chronological timeline, there's really a better way. Otherwise, this disrupts the flow of the prose and frankly reads like an inline footnote. To mention the names of the owners, just place them in a single sentence or two in relation to the dates. There's really no reason to say "According to a 1973 Oregonian obituary" and " An obituary published by The Oregonian in 1987" when all you are trying to do is name the owners. If you want to preserve that research in a footnote, by all means do so, but placing this burden on the reader is excessive for simply mentioning the name of the owner. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Events[edit]

Resolved
  • In 1985... In 2000... In 2006... In 2009... In 2010...
    • See Wikipedia:Proseline. This is pseudo-proseline, but the result is the same. Try to avoid this kind of prose style and write naturally about events without using the dates as a focal point. Instead, focus on the types of events: musical acts, trivia competitions, karaoke, and goldfish racing. Otherwise, this is a trivial list with little connecting it together. Let's see what we can do:
  • Gypsy hosted a variety of musical acts and events throughout its history, including trivia competitions and rock band karaoke, featuring a live backing band.
  • In 2006, the restaurant held a birthday party for Andy Warhol, nearly twenty years after his death. One Oregonian contributor called Gypsy a "fitting setting" for the celebration, given its lava lamps and blue and orange fishbowl drinks, which he said were "like Pop art through a straw".
    • One way to remove the proseline style here is to start off like this: "Nearly twenty years after the death of Andy Warhol, the Gypsy held a birthday party in his honor in 2006." That way you don't have to start it off with "'In 2006". Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2009, when Cinema 21 hosted "Can't Stop the Serenity", a benefit for Equality Now that included two screenings of the 2005 film Serenity, Gypsy partnered with the theater by hosting a costume contest, pub quiz, and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog karaoke.
    • Same as above. Try to eliminate the proseline style: "Gypsy partnered with Cinema 21 in 2009 when the theater hosted "Can't Stop the Serenity", a benefit for Equality Now that included two screenings of the film Serenity (2005). Festivities included a costume contest, pub quiz, and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog karaoke." You get the idea. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2010, Pub Quiz USA hosted an "All 'Lost' Trivia Night" for fans of the television program Lost.
    • "Pub Quiz USA hosted an "All 'Lost' Trivia Night" at the Gypsy in 2010 for fans of the television program Lost." Easy to eliminate proseline. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2010, in an attempt to offer "something different and exciting to do",[29] Gypsy began hosting goldfish racing tournaments.
    • "In an attempt to offer "something different and exciting to do", Gypsy began hosting goldfish racing tournaments in 2010." Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1985, the Chris Conrad Quartet performed in the "Rhythm Room".
    • What is the "Rhythm Room"? Is this the same thing as the lounge area? If so, maybe mention this in the description or somewhere else so you don't just surprise us with it. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great question. The "Rhythm Room" is all that appeared in the source, which is why I used the direct quote. I did not come across it elsewhere, so I thought it was worth saying exactly what the source said. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't get me wrong; I understand that's why and how you used it. But that's not enough. You also have to keep in mind what happens when a reader, who knows nothing about this subject, comes across it. If I had the source to review, I would guess that it's another name for the lounge. Can you check it out again and see if I'm right? Very often, bars like this will change the name of their main stage, which in this particular case, is simply the lounge. If that is indeed the case, then all you would need to do is make a note of it so the reader understands what is being said. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1985, the Chris Conrad Quartet performed in the "Rhythm Room". In 2000, it hosted opening and closing night parties for Sensory Perceptions' annual film festival, which spanned two weekends at neighboring Cinema 21.
    • I'm not sure what's going on here. As I said above, what's the "Rhythm Room"? And what do you mean by "it hosted opening and closing night parties". Does "it" refer to the Chris Conrad Quartet or the venue? And who is the Chris Conrad Quartet. A little supporting background information will help. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replaced "it" with Gypsy. I don't know who the Chris Conrad Quartet is. If this should be removed because the group is not notable, that is fine, but I am just stating what the source says. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is all that comes up when I google "Chris Conrad Quartet". Is this even worth mentioning? If not, the source could be used as a second ref for the previous sentence, verifying a musical act. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Resolved
  • Comment: I am not sure why "|chapter= ignored (help)" appears so many times within the Ref section of the article, but I know I have seen this at many other articles, too, so it is not unique to this one. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's prompting you (without knowing it, of course, thanks Wikipedia developers) to use the parameter "at" instead of "section", which is apparently equivalent to "chapter", so it's throwing you a parameter error for cite news. This may have something to do with the mucking about being done with the citation styles. As usual, these people don't care what happens on the front end. Anyway, the temporary solution is to replace all instances of "section" in the cite templates with "at". Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "At"?! What kind of parameter is that? I'll do the search and replace, but I may need to read the discussion re: cite news template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Except for the few remaining which say "Extra |pages= or |at= (help).". Grrrrrrrr. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So here's what's happening: |at= won't work with |page= because the people working on citation style have very short-sighted goals. So when you changed it to the new parameter, it fixed the previous instances of |section= only in cases lacking a page number. The remaining templates use the page number and the section header. So for now, I would just remove the entire |at= field (and information in that field) only in the instances giving the "extra" error. This is because, in these examples, the page number is more important than the section title. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this discussion, there's a possibility the section parameters have been fixed for cite web. I don't know if cite news was fixed as well. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Resolved
  • I'm not seeing a need for the two links currently in this section. The first one, a link to Concept Entertainment, is the former owner. The site says nothing about this topic. The second link goes to a news article about the damage sustained by the restaurant due to a fallen tree branch in 2013. Other sources in this article also discuss it, but it isn't discussed in the body. The link would be better served as a reference to the incident in the article, most likely in the last paragraph of the "Concept Entertainment" section, just prior to the sale. It is likely that the damage to the restaurant contributed to the sale. If there's a stable, Portland nostaligia site devoted to dive bars with a section on this topic, we may want to consider linking to it here instead. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to push back here and say that I think it is helpful to include the link to the Concept Entertainment which is related to this restaurant because there are multiple companies called Concept Entertainment. Providing the link allows readers, if they wish, to learn more about the company being discussed and/or the other establishments they own. I don't feel so strongly that I won't remove the link, but I am just sharing why I included it in the first place. I will revisit the tree-falling indecent.  Doing... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using Wikipedia:External links as your guide, how is the link to Concept Entertainment helpful? Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll take your word that you are more familiar with the guideline than I am. Link removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I removed the EL about the tree limb and added a sentence to the prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. FYI... per the instructions at the main template, {{Commons}} you don't need the external links section at all. "If no such section exists, then please place it at the top of the last section in the article, or consider using {{Commons-inline}} instead." Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went with the latter option. I think the Commons category would seem out of place displayed in the Reception section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • The last section in this article refers to the "References", which is where links to commons go when there are no external links. It's very, very common and used in many articles per the MOS. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you don't mind, I'd prefer to use the second acceptable option. Since the References section is columned, sticking a floating Commons category above or below the Reflist command will add white space and eliminate symmetry, then close with a floating portal bar. I think the current inline structure is more aesthetically pleasing. ----Another Believer (Talk) 03:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's fine; that's why I marked it resolved before you replied. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Lead phrasing should be rewritten to avoid close paraphrasing
    Confirm establishment date
    Resolve ownership date discrepancies
    History section prose needs a good copyedit
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Per the MOS, external links should be meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Does not meet WP:ELOFFICIAL per the above section
    Improved layout of article (splitting out history section) will greatly enhance readability
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Merge 2013 storm damage from external links into body
    Done
    Would like to see structural layout/walk-through/mention of dining area/upper bar/lounge/lower bar
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit wars
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Looks good
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    OK, but interest in an active bar image expressed up above.
    Doubtful, but do you think any of the other images in the Commons category are worth using? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter; I've already checked off on it. I'm offering a suggestion for improving the images. It's possible someone will donate them if asked. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Nominator has attempted to address the majority of issues I raised in this lengthy review, and for that I thank them. I have left detailed suggestions for improvement in the above sections, which I would prefer to remain uncollapsed. In closing, I will summarize my suggestions:
    • Lead section improvement is possible and encouraged with new paraphrasing and expansion of specific points raised above. While I believe the close paraphrasing issues have been solved, to my eye, it still reads too similar to Fodors
    • Description section would greatly benefit from a visual description of the structural layout (upper dining area and bar, lower lounge and bar) Specific menu, food, and drink aspects could be moved to a "restaurant" or "food and drink" section
    • Excessive attribution in the history section makes diminishes readability. I've explained how to deal with this above.
    • If the "Chris Conrad Quartet" isn't notable, don't mention it in the events section.
    • "Reception", in my opinion, should be a "restaurant" or "food and drink" section focusing on those things.
    Thanks for your good work. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very thorough review. Your time and assistance are much appreciated, truly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gypsy_Restaurant_and_Velvet_Lounge/GA1&oldid=711569774"