Talk:Rise Bar/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) 23:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a look see. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is going to be a quick fail put on hold (udpated at 04:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)). There are simply too many issues with the page as-is for this to pass GA.

The article currently contains ten different cited sources. Among these sources the vast majority appear to be unreliable for an article on a business:

• Sherman's Travel appears to be a blog of a travel company website;
• The GayMapper source seems to be advertorial and/or WP:SPS;
• NYC Go is a site that NYC uses to advertise itself to tourists, so it is clearly an advertisement;
• Travel Gay does not appear to be much different from Sherman's Travel; both appear to be travel company self-published listings of the place.
• GayCities appears likewise to not really be a WP:RS and the material comes off as not rigorously reviewed, though it's used for relatively mundane information (albeit about living people);
• GayNation is a two-man blog that doesn't appear to carry any WP:WEIGHT.

The result of these sources being used is that the article comes off as rather advertorial in tone. Strong sources are going to be needed in the reception section, rather than advertisements put out by the city or posts by groups to trying to sell you vacations. The history section seems to also be one-sided; it doesn't go into detail as to why there was opposition to the bar's opening despite those reasons being covered in the DNAInfo sources, but it does give the owner's side of the story by citing those very sources. The description section also has sourcing issues; it describes the bar as having a disco ball when there is none clearly mentioned in either cited source (the NYT piece mentions a "glitter ball"). Similarly, none of the sources cited inline mention public viewings of RuPaul's Drag Race at the venue (NYT mentions "drag competitions" but doesn't go into any more detail than that), which is an oddly specific detail to be included if it isn't prominently mentioned in the sources. And, pulling quotes from tourism websites is probably undue in an article to begin with, unless that website is independent of the establishment and has an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Beyond this all, it's not clear to me that the bar passes WP:NCORP's WP:ORGDEPTH notability guideline based on the sources in the article. While that is a separate issue, this might play into the temptation to stretch into lower quality sources in order to get more information on the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@Mikehawk10: Thanks for the review. I do wish the article had been placed on hold so some of the above issues could be addressed, but you're free to quick fail if you feel the need, of course. I would just like to say I don't agree with a lot of this review. For one, I did do background research on the sourcing and did not find evidence that any of them are WP:SPS, so I'm curious as to why you think the ones you noted above fall under that category. It's hard to tell from your description. If any of them really did turn out to fall into that category, I would be more than happy to remove them.

Regarding the History section, the second sentence explains why there were noise concerns, and the response to that concern is then summarized accordingly, so I've got to strongly disagree that it doesn't go into detail as to why there was opposition to the bar's opening despite those reasons being covered in the DNAInfo sources. There isn't much detail to report apart from what's already there: the neighborhood is full of nightlife venues, and residents were concerned about added noise.

Glitter ball is a redirect to disco ball, so I fail to see how the word choice is an issue (plus, that can easily be changed).

It's not true that the RuPaul's Drag Race viewing parties are unsourced; they are indeed cited inline to the Travel Gay source. That detail could easily be removed if the source is indeed SPS, though, as above, I didn't see anything to suggest it is.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of the article is sourced to The New York Times and DNAinfo. Most of the other sources are cited only once or twice each. Removing the Reception section would get rid of all of them, too. Almost every time one of the other sources is used above that, it's just to corroborate something that appeared in NYT or DNAinfo.

Would be happy to address some of these concerns, but that's up to you. Cheers, Armadillopteryx 01:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

NYC Go is run by a source that self-describes as the official destination marketing organization... for the five boroughs of New York City. The source is marketing materials; promotional materials are questionable in nature. One of the two sentences in the Gay Cities source is Pop in and get into the (new) groove, while the other sentence provides the names of the owners; it's an extra citation from a non-reliable source where other sources exist (see also: WP:OVERCITE). I'd be happy to take these sources to RSN if you dispute that they're SPS.

I don't see any mention of "RuPaul" in the TravelGay source. Are you referring to its mention of "Drag Race screenings"?

Perhaps without the reception section the advertorial tone would be toned down. But we'd wind up with such a short article that I'd still not feel comfortable giving the green stamp to. The more I look, there's more to the history of the opposition to the bar that isn't included, and I really don't think that the current draft covers the major aspects. I'm also seeing different crowd makeup described by at least one source that's reliable for NYC reporting. There's also some notable visitors (see: RTL) and weekly gigs (see: [1]) at the bar that have received coverage. This really didn't require a deep google search, though it shows that there is coverage of some important parts of this enterprise that aren't present currently. If these are improved, I have no prejudice against a re-submission, but I really don't see any way to approve it now. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The WP:OVERCITE point is fair; I have no issue removing that citation. I will look more into NYC Go since its purpose seems to be to collate information about points of interest in the city, but it doesn't appear to have any interest in promoting this (or any) destination over others. Either way, I don't think that source is too critical to the article, and it could easily be removed.

Drag Race is shorthand for RuPaul's Drag Race; this is a common nickname for the show, even in materials explicitly about the show. I could show examples if you want, though I'm not sure how critical it is at this moment if you don't intend to reopen the review.

I hadn't been able to find this source before; thanks for sharing it. It's the same link as the one right after it; had you meant to link something else? This source is not about Rise Bar at all; it's about The Spot, which is another bar under the same ownership.

I also hadn't found this despite all the Googling I did, so thanks for this one as well. Ditto for the next two sources. I appreciate the new material, which I will happily add to the article. Armadillopteryx 04:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for being sloppy in my pasting. There was an error in including the local magazine source (doesn't apply) and the two DNA info articles I meant to link were the one I linked previously and this one I didn't link. I also did encounter something about another bar in New York of the same name, though I don't think that there's a real risk of confusion. Also, I had assumed "Drag Race" referred to watching a drag race, and I have to admit that I'm not in touch on television shows generally.

On second thoughts, there's really no harm to reopening this and putting it on hold. A renomination is more or less the same thing as reopening this except for the procedural aspect, so I'll reopen it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, got it! No problem; thanks for the new link. I also just came across a third new DNAinfo source, which I will add to the list of those to incorporate (below). Thanks for reopening the review! I'll get to work on this shortly. Armadillopteryx 04:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem! Just ping me when you would like me to take another look. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: I am still working through all the new sourcing to add, but in the meantime I just wanted to let you know I've started an RSN thread (pinged you there) regarding four of the sources you mentioned in the original GA review. I've already scrapped Gay Nation and GayCities per WP:OVERCITE. Pending the outcome of the RSN discussion, I'll either keep or scrap the other four as well. Armadillopteryx 18:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've finished fleshing out the Description and History sections with the new sources. Still waiting on replies over at RSN re: the ones used in Reception. Armadillopteryx 03:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Per the one response to the RSN thread and your comments above, I've made this edit, which removes Travel Gay and GayMapper from the article, removes nycgo.com for all purposes except identifying events that occur at the bar, and rewrites the Reception section. How do you feel about this new draft? Armadillopteryx 03:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Separate note: the images are currently sandwiching the page on my computer. Would it be possible to use Template:Multiple images to bring that in line with the Manual of Style? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any sandwiching on my screen, but done. Armadillopteryx 01:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10: are you still requesting a second opinion on this article, or are you still working through it with the nominator? Ganesha811 (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ganesha811: I am requesting a second opinion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll take a look and give a second opinion. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

      Thank you! Armadillopteryx 21:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'm in two minds here. First of all, I would say that the article meets almost all (if not all) of the formal criteria to pass GA. It is well-written, free from original research, covers the subject neutrally enough without promotionalism, meets image requirements, etc. Looking over the discussion about the reliability of the sources, I think the resolution you reached was fine. I also feel that despite its connection to the dispute covered in the article, the sentence+source about its current hours of operation should be removed - Wikipedia is WP:NOT a travel guide or directory.

Based on all that, I think this article should pass GA. However, I am unconvinced of the fundamental notability of the subject. I re-read WP:NCORP to make sure I wasn't out on a limb. DNAinfo has little discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard but given its hyperlocal focus I'm not sure it is useful for judging notability. The Gothamist and ShermansTravel sources are explicitly the type of list coverage that is deemed insignificant by NCORP's examples of trivial coverage. Without those, you're really just left with a couple of reliable, independent, significant sources. To my mind, it is *extremely* borderline for notability.

However, GA review is not actually about notability. I think that if the original reviewer is satisfied, it should pass GA, and the question of the subject's notability can be decided separately, in an appropriate forum. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

With that, I see no reason to delay. GA it is. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

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.