Talk:The Roxy (Portland, Oregon)/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 on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gerald Waldo Luis (talk · contribs) 11:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting[edit]

Hi there, welcome to the good article nomination page for The Roxy (Portland, Oregon). Please note that we are not here solely to see whether the article is GA-worthy, but also ways we can improve it to make it GA. When replying to someone, type a colon (:), followed by your comment. Remember to be civil and assume good faith on each other whenever possible.

I would not primarily look at the completeness of its coverage on the diner; if you feel like an information must be added feel free to add one. I would rather look primarily on whether the article meets the criteria, and how it can be improved. GeraldWL 11:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Starting off slow. All photos are relevant to the article and have appropriate captions. There are four images here: 3 are self-taken and under CC BY-SA 3.0, and one (the logo) is under fair use. It still needs to be reduced. GeraldWL 11:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, Yup, a bot should take care of the reduction soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead is all good.

👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

UPDATE: The prose has complied with the GA's criteria on prose. GeraldWL 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a gay bar called Scandals and a residential hotel." Maybe put a comma between "Scandals" and "and"?
I'm not the nom, but I just want to point out that this change would be grammatically incorrect. Both noun phrases ("a gay bar called Scandals" and "a residential hotel") are direct objects of the verb "neighbors", meaning they form a compound direct object. Introducing a comma before the conjunction would require the addition of a new independent clause with its own subject and verb (e.g. "The restaurant's small storefront neighbors a gay bar called Scandals, and it sits beside a residential hotel."). Armadillopteryx 12:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armadillopteryx, The nom here is Larry Hockett. After a re-read, it seemed like that sentence is fine. Strikethroughed this.
  • "The interior features a jukebox and a sculpture of Jesus." Perhaps it can be changed to "Inside the diner, there is a jukebox and a sculpture of Jesus."
  • "described The Roxy as a "24-hour-unless-it's-Monday gay diner..." How is that noteworthy?
  • Quotes "Reception" seemed to contains many slangs. Perhaps [clarification needed]?
  • "chat about Twin Peaks..." Mind linking the "Twin Peaks" that is referred to? GeraldWL 12:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, In my opinion, noting the establishment has been called a "gay diner" is important. I specifically wanted to include "gay diner" and "queer haven" to emphasize the connection to the LGBT community. You'll need to specific which slangs are bothersome. I've linked Twin Peaks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, I find the queer haven thing to be more unique. The moniker "24-hours-unless-its-Monday" is a rough copy of the diner's schedule and is so unoriginal; it has been stated that the diner opens 24/7 except for Monday. GeraldWL 01:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, Oh, sure! I've trimmed that part and kept "gay diner". That work for you? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, Yes, I find "gay diner" to be noteworthy. Regarding slangs, ones I find bothersome are "joe" and "DayGlo-yellow gravy." Another confusing term is "Second-rate actors." GeraldWL 01:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, Not sure what to link "second-rate actor" to, but I've linked "cup of joe" and "DayGlo" to relevant Wikipedia articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, there is a Wiktionary entry that defines it as "mediocre." I would prefer linking to that entry. GeraldWL 03:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO "second-rate" is a common, standard term in English. Not sure it makes sense to go to Wiktionary just to link MOS:COMMONWORDS. Armadillopteryx 03:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? That's my first time hearing it. I mean who am I to judge a word uncommon, so okay. GeraldWL 10:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, Yeah, I have to agree, I don't think there's a need to link "second-rate". ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

All statements come from reliable sources and verified, and there are no original research. References are layouted. GeraldWL 11:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stability[edit]

Another Believer has added many content to this article for the past few days, but concerning edit wars, there's none. So I consider it to be stable. GeraldWL 11:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the claims are particularly controversial and another editor (who weighed in above) has reviewed the article as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness and focus[edit]

A good article must "address[...] the main aspects of the topic" and "stay[...] focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." The article talked about the diner in, I'll say, a pretty broad manner, and it does not go to vague details. GeraldWL 11:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

The article is neutral, written without bias. Although I think the overly-melodramatic quotes can be trimmed. GeraldWL 12:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But these do such a great job describing The Roxy, its clientele, and the nostalgia many locals have with the restaurant. I'd say the quotes also reflect the type of writing one would expect from the alternative papers. If trims are absolutely necessary, I'm curious what you'd prefer to cut, otherwise I'm hoping the 2 quotes aren't GA-disqualifying. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did complete a slight trim to remove redundant mention of the restaurant being closed on Mondays. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, I realized I'm being too ignorant without actually reading the whole quote haha. Need to read more fiction to adapt to these languages. GeraldWL 15:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, I think I've address your concerns, but if any remain, please let me know. Thanks again for your review! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, first time reviewing and glad I did it well. The only problem left is the fair use image. GeraldWL 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, Thanks for confirming. For what it's worth, DatBot should take care of the image soon, so hopefully that doesn't stall this article's promotion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, I hope it does take care of it. I once uploaded a fair-use image and that bitch need 1 month to reduce the file. We'll see— if it ain't reduced then perhaps someone should reduce it. GeraldWL 16:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, Yeah, I saw DatBot just reduced File:Acadia logo.jpg after about a month. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, one thing I can probably suggest for the article (which does not affect whether it will be GA but I'll talk about it anyway): the photos seem to only show the interior of the diner. I would love to see an exterior image. Visitor7 can maybe help with it, or maybe other Wikipedians in Portland, Oregon. I would love to also see photos picturing changes made 'cuz of the pandemic. GeraldWL 16:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, Visitor7 is no longer active. I live in Portland and have tasked myself with taking exterior photos next time I'm in the area. I'd like to get a photo of the boarded windows, if possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, thanks for that :) GeraldWL 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style[edit]

  • The article title is spot-on, although since there are no other "The Roxy (Portland)"s, it would be more efficient to title it "The Roxy (Portland)", and have the latter as a redirect.
    • "Portland, Oregon" is the disambiguator because the parent article is Portland, Oregon. I think the only other disambigutaor to consider using is "restaurant". ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another Believer, or "(diner)" to be numerically shorter. GeraldWL 13:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Gerald Waldo Luis, I'm not sure I've seen "diner" used as a disambiguator before. "Restaurant" seems more general. I think this is more of an article Talk page discussion than a GA one. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another Believer, I mean I'm fine with the current title, I just feel like it can be changed to a shorter one concerning Article title is part of MOS. GeraldWL 14:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article uses American quotations and American spelling. Should it use the variant?
  • The article complies with the Manual of Style a good article must comply with. GeraldWL 11:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerald Waldo Luis, Thanks for your review! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion[edit]

This article has adhered to all GA requirements and I definitely support this. Whilst waiting for the fair-use image to be reduced, I'm making this  On hold. Good job y'all. GeraldWL 17:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the file is reduced by the bot, it has fully  Passed the GA criteria. GeraldWL 05:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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:The_Roxy_(Portland,_Oregon)/GA1&oldid=988676786"