Talk:Sissy Bar (Portland, Oregon)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Another Believer (talk · contribs) 17:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy to address any concerns you might have. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: The review is finished. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 21:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is smooth and simple to read. I spotted no typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is of adequate length. Article is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not plagued with words from the WTW list. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article has a reference section; no bare URLs spotted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most cited sources (including Willamette Week and Eater) are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Awaiting response.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Prior to this review, the Earwig report detected a 78.5% similarity to this source. Additionally, two other sources were above a 50% similarity. However, based on my prior experience with the nominator, this problem will be resolved as the review progresses. Issue resolved. The top result is at a 9.9% similarity, meaning that it is unlikely that the article contains copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article contains substantial information about the bar's exterior, menu, history, and reception.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	After the review, irrelevant bits of content have been cut.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is neutral. It does not try to promote or criticize the subject itself.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Obviously.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The exterior image is licensed under CC SA 4.0. The logo is copyrighted and has a valid fair use rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The caption for the exterior image is adequate.
	7. Overall assessment.

First comments

Ouch. Hopefully, we can find a way to reduce potential copyright violations.
- I don't think quoting the owner re: reason for the closure is problematic, since the quote is attributed properly, but can be trimmed if you feel strongly! Made this trim to start. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a quick note to say 'thanks' for being willing to make article improvements directly! Super helpful and feels more collaborative that way. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no problem! Happy to help. :D TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Issue has been resolved. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

themed events - At first I thought it meant LGBT-themed events. Is that right?
- No, just theme nights in general. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It closed permanently in October 2024. - Would recommend (briefly) adding on to this point.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description

described by Willamette Week's Andrew Jankowski as "the color of panels on the electronic memory game Simon." - Funny, but not really needed. I think we can get rid of this quote.
- Paraphrased ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Jankowski, "The volume of the music videos is loud enough so that you can enjoy the songs, but not so noisy that conversations need to be yelled." - Irrelevant content. Would recommend cutting.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He described the clientele as "groups of friends of all orientations and a range of legal drinking ages", some of whom "appeared to have just left the office, while others were dressed to impress—ready for wherever the night took them". - This could either be cut or moved to the reception section. I feel as though it does not describe what the restaurant looks like and more of how it feels like. (sorry if that sounded a little unclear)
- In this case, I would prefer to leave in the Description section, if possible. To me, a description of the clientele helps paint a picture of what the scene is/was like. Also, based on my work on many other restaurant articles, I've included clientele descriptions in Description section. I can change if you feel strongly, but I just want to say the current format is more consistent with similar articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sissy Bar used recipes from the Colombian family of the husband of one of the bar's owners. - Can't think of a better way to rephrase this sentence, but I just know there's something wrong with it.
- I keep tinkering with the wording and coming back to this. It is a bit of a mouthful but I think most grammatically correct. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which referred to the Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident (2022). - Not sure why we need an explanation for the reference when all other drinks don't have one.
- I think not explaining the reference would make readers wonder why Will Smith is mentioned. If sources described references for the other drinks, I would have included those as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

In December 2021, Jackson-Glidden described plans for Truman Cox, - Nearest citation in the section doesn't support this.
- Added citation to end of sentence. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 07:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Palmer was described as the bar's "owner-operator". - Can't we just say he is the owner-operator?
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though we can remove the closing message; the statement preceding it sums it up quite nicely.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Separately, the newspaper recommended the Will Smith Punch. - "Separately" = In a separate article?
- Sure! Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 07:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed some quotes myself.
- Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 07:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checking

Current revision is here.
#4: Y Y
#7: N - Does not mention the chicken stew.
#12: N - Can't find the part where the owners announced plans to close following a Halloween party.
#16: Y