Jump to content

Talk:Bouncer/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I took it on because I remembered that one of my landlords had been famous locally as a bouncer. He had the build and strength of a gorilla - I once saw him with an armchair under each arm - but was a very nice guy and I never heard of any trouble when he was on duty. I'll post proper comments within a day or two - remind me if I'm tardy. --Philcha (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do reviews in 3 stages:

  • Coverage and structure
  • The nitty-gritty details - style, refs, status of images
  • The lead, when all main content issues are resolved.

Coverage

[edit]

In most respects you guys have been impressively thorough - and the article is fun to read. However there are a few more aspects that should be covered:

  • The presentation of the history starts at 1800, and entirely in the USA. I'm pretty confident that earlier urban cultures would have had the same behaviour problems and therefore needed bouncers. I'd expect there to be good refs for ancient Rome and ancient Greece. If I were editing this I'd also consider ancient Mesopotamia (Babylon, Sumer, etc.; I remember reading about an ancient poem from one of these cities about the pros and cons of urban life) and China. Brownie points if you can find a pic with supporting citation of a bouncer from any ancient culture!
  • At present the article is mainly about the USA, with a few mentions of other countries. What about e.g. Russia, China, Japan, India (the last of which publishes a lot in English), Germany (especially in the 1930s, when the streets were ruled by politically-aligned gangs), Turkey (where football supporters, i.e. soccer fans, can get pretty rough), etc.?
Struck parts now covered. Ingolfson (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched but did not find anything about Turkey - it would be difficult to find anything citeable about bouncing in Turkey anyway in English language, at least if we are looking for more than "3 bouncers in a brawl"! I have however instead added something on UK football hooligans and their fights with bouncers, and an indirect reference to North African countries being considered the 'bouncers' of the European Union's borders. Ingolfson (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find Babylon / Sumer materials (though the Mesopotamian myths probably partly count), but I found a biblical reference. Ingolfson (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

*Other names for "bouncer" appear in the lead but not on the main text. Lead should only summarise main text. Done. Ingolfson (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other notes

[edit]

*Image:Thebouncer.JPG might be good, if we can get supporting info - I've asked the uploader at Commons --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has not responded or done anything at all since joining except upload this one image which I am unsure whether it is acceptably licensed anyway (if it is a copyrighted graphic novel, as I suspect). So striking in terms of "tasks to do". Ingolfson (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this on, Philcha. It's been at GA nom for about three weeks now, I think, so it's appreciated. Regarding the history starting in 1800, it's been rather difficult to locate any in-depth information even from present, let alone ancient texts and scriptures, but we can try again. It would have to be honour guards and bodyguards, though, as "bouncer" wasn't really an occupation as such. Regarding more diverse explanations and descriptions from other countries, this is something we set out to achieve earlier, although precious little verifiable information exists, as we've come to discover. You'll notice that User:Ingolfson has added information that he has been able to retrieve already, but even we feel this is probably not enough to complete the article, at least not to FA standard. Rules and laws are so varied, even in states, regions, provinces, etc of only one country that this has also proven an obstacle for me. We'll try, though. For the last point, we have those names only in the lead because the term "bouncer" is really an informal title used by the public as a whole, rather than an official title used by the industry or any specialist security services of any kind. I strongly feel that this is an important point to be made for the description of such an occupation, so please let me know if removing this is an absolute necessity. I'll be back to start on your suggestions later tonight. Cheers. The Cake is a Lie T / C 23:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to remove the other names, I suggest moving this content to the top of the "Functions" section, just above the sub-section "Bouncer". --Philcha (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some searching:
  • I found a few in Latin literature:

:**The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 11, pages 393-394 - note "Christians" among the shady characters on the police's shakedown list (quote from Tertullian) Included. Ingolfson (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Eden, P.T, (1994). "Miscellanea". Mnemosyne. 47 (4): 516. doi:10.1163/156852594X00294.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

: "One such functionary commonly to be found in well-to-do houses was the janitor, ostiarius, who sometimes acted as a 'bouncer' (cf. Seneca Dial. 5.37.2), and might take note of irregular behaviour." The Seneca reference is from Dialogue 5, "On Anger", at Dialogues and Essays, page 47 Added, but from another reference. The first is a link you have to pay to access, the second was a bit too indirect in being applicable for the article. Ingolfson (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Plautus (1999), "Bacchides", in Berg, D., and Parker, D. (ed.), Five Comedies, translated by Parker, D., Hackett Publishing, p. 193, ISBN 087220362X{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
      "Get lost!
      Unless you want to feel the unwanted attentions
      of a large and powerful bouncer behind that door!"

Covered. Ingolfson (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I agree, WP needs brightening up with surprises like this. If this article were being expanded from a stub, the ants item would be a good candidate for DYK. A brief version has to go in the lead, to whet curiosity. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good stuff! Where'd you get all of this? Anyway, I like it all, except.. the ants. Not really sure how we'd work that in... The Cake is a Lie T / C 08:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the real work starts

[edit]

Hi, I see you've made a few changes. I also noticed you've contacted the uploader of Image:Thebouncer.JPG.

The article is well-written, and looks well-sourced (although I haven't yet checked sources in detail). However on re-reading it I became aware of some problems of perspective:

  • It's still very oriented towards developed countries and especially USA. To some extent that's caused by availability of sources.
  • The first half reads almost as an advert for the security and hospitality industries. I notice you haven't yet incorporated the material I found about the problems associated with bouncers in countries where "western" culture is not dominant.
  • Partly as a result of this, the structure looks fragmented.

I think it would be worth considering a re-structure to make it flow better, by covering the "problems" and then the legal and industry responses to these. Then the lead will almost write itself.

  • "Functions" is fine as it is and where it is. Also has the advantage of a modern perspective before launching into the chequered history, so helps to keep the article balanced.
  • History - I think this could also be a little briefer, especially for USA, although colourful anecdotes like the one about Mickey Steele are worth keeping.
    • Ancient
    • Western world
    • Elsewhere - good place for problems associated with bouncers in countries where "western" culture is not dominant.
  • Sociology (perceptions of bouncers; difficulties of machismo in bouncers and "patrons")
  • Legal / regulatory -point out this applies to "western" cultures"
    • Limitations on use of force
    • Cost of lawsuits
  • Selection and training - could be a good place to point out other commercial incentives, e.g. image, family-friendliness. Point out this applies to "western" cultures"
Could you please explain what you mean by "Western culture"? I'm not sure I understand what this means in regards to family friendliness and such. Regarding history, the last guy failed the GAN partly because the history was too brief and not enough of it was about the US. What should we sum up more quickly? Also, I'm not certain that regulation only applies to Western culture, but maybe I'm misinterpreting the context. Could you please elaborate? The Cake is a Lie T / C 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re "western cultures" I mean those that follow the patterns developed in W Europe - which includes, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and apparently, for the purposes of this article Singapore. I guess I'm referring to cultures where the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law are well established, as opposed to those where anyone who can afford to hire muscle is superior to anyone who can't - please don't ask me to dig up refs for that!
Re the history, given how much there is to rest of the article, it's long enough. As a Brit and having read quite a bit of non-European history (I won't bore you with why), it struck me very quickly that this is too US-centric - I just looked at the previous review and it said nothing about the history being too brief and not giving enough detail on the US. When I Googled I was disappointed not to find any sources for ancient China, Mesopotamia or Egypt. Any urban civilisation needs bouncers to guard the homes of the rich, important meeting places and places of entertainment. Since sources are really hard to find, that's OK for GA. If this were an FA review, where coverage is supposed to be "comprehensive", coverage of ancient and non-"Western" cultures would be required. Making the existing historical content a little more concise will mkae room for the additional history as people find it.

BTW, what did you think of the structure I suggested?

More sources:

Thanks for clarifying. I've got no problems with the structure suggestion. We can swap all of that around. I'm not sure where the US conversation stuff is, maybe it was at GAN? I remember speaking with Ingolfson regarding expansion of the article, but that there was already enough US content, despite what the previous reviewer believed. As an Australian, I'm more than happy to be sure there's more international content. I've just got to get through my work. I get in deep shit when people see me editing Wikipedia at a work PC... The Cake is a Lie T / C 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is anybody there? I'd be rather annoyed if I had to fail this for lack of response. --Philcha (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding. I'm bogged down with work at the moment due to Christmas preparations. I haven't had time to do anything with Wikipedia and probably won't be doing more than dropping in to check recent edits for vandalism for a few weeks. Sorry, but I'm a little overwhelmed right now. The Cake is a Lie T / C 11:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, real life can be an obstruction. However I think we need to get this wrapped up by mid-Jan 2009 (!) at the absolute latest. --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I'll be able to make time in January, I'm sure. The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just let this fail. We will resubmit in a few months when the requirements for a "Good article" have increased again, just so we can get our masochism on. Ingolfson (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. I will make an effort during the next days to get this over the hurdle. Can we please have unti the 18th January unless we contact you earlier? Ingolfson (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bouncing" is not a profession, it's job. Instead of using the word profession in reference to bouncing, use the word job. Bouncing doesn't require a college degree, it's not a profession. It's not comparable to doctor, professor, attorney, etc. Also, the image of the bouncer in the Infobox looks like nothing more than a guy standing outside some joint. Other than the caption, there's nothing in the image that identifies him as a bouncer. Find a better image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReverendLogos (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How very elitist of you. Well, if you read the article, you'll note that there does happen to be a level of training involved in most regions and countries, although the fact that it doesn't involve five years of academia and a master's degree leads me to believe that a gentleman of your obvious esteem probably wouldn't find this satisfactory. The Cake is a Lie T / C 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this article is taking a world view of the topic, the editor needs to be careful about using words like 'profession'. What does the word 'profession' mean to the English, the Dutch, the Japanese, the Chinese? If the word means traditional academic education and a degree from an accredited university, then the editor here should not be using 'profession' in connection with 'bouncing' -- which probably requires only two weeks of on-the-job training at the most. Bouncing is not a profession and the word shouldn't be used in connection with it because such use is misleading. The editor needs to check US government sources in connection with this article. Try the public library or [1]. Idioms like "covering an employee's back" and "in the moment" need to be defined for those unfamiliar with the expressions.ReverendLogos (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've just highlighted the assumption in your own argument - "If the word means traditional academic education and a degree from an accredited university ..." This assumption is untrue even in the West, e.g. nurses, physiotherapists and, in some countries, accountants, do not neccessarily have university degrees. --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If some nurses, accountants, and physiotherapists don't have university degrees then it means they're not professionals, right? The word professional is thrown all over the place today. "I'm a professional grocery store check-out girl, I'm a professional pole dancer, I'm a professional pump jockey, I'm a professional blahblahblah ... The word has come to mean "I'm paid to do something therefore I'm a professional." Ridiculous. ReverendLogos (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting assumption again, I was required to do a ten week course at a TAFE institute (not including the police licensing and first-aid level 2 courses that I was also required to complete) in order to receive my crowd controller's licence. Two weeks of on the job training wouldn't suffice, I'm afraid. Also, considering that this article is written in a formal tone and setting, "job" would be incorrect anyway. I think the proper terminology would be "career" at the very least, given the nature of the article and the fact that "profession" is clearly reserved only for use by the social elite. The Cake is a Lie T / C 11:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, "job" is correct meaning "a regular remunerative position", alternatives would be "work", "work life"... "A bouncer's job/work may require administering first aid." "A bouncer's job/work may involve late night hours." In light of the fact this article is being written in a formal tone, "profession" is incorrect and "career" is incorrect too. What's wrong with job or work? Considering this is a formal article, idioms like "covering one's back" should be avoided. Also, the "Character" section needs considerable citation. Otherwise it sounds POV. Check some US Labor Department materials on "bouncing". Such material is available online and in public libraries. Most of this article could have been written citing one or two government sources. ReverendLogos (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with ReverendLogos quite seriously. He himself notes that "the word professional is thrown all over the place today." yet he apparently expects a Wikipedia article to be holier than thou on a minor definitional point instead of concentrating on what makes the article better. Also comments like "idioms like "covering one's back" should be avoided." (because the articlle is written in a formal style / is on Wikipedia) make my skin crawl - why not let Wikipedia be written by a computer without any sense of style, English language or writing quality? How about we introduce "approved lists" of things that are okay to say in a good article, and ban all other turns of phrases to ensure quality? Ingolfson (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, 'bouncing' is not a profession, and it should not be defined as such in this article. An idiom like "cover one's back" should be avoided here because there are many readers who would not be familiar with it. The expression has a slang tone to it that is inappropriate in a formal WP article. ReverendLogos (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that several of the uses of the word "Professional" in the article are from direct quotes of people associated with the industry. Another argument for the keeping this as an acceptable word. Ingolfson (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Grocery store check-out girls run around identifying themselves as "professional" grocery store check-out girls. They based their identification upon such things as "I'm paid to do the job, I had three days of job training, my employer says I'm the best check-out girl he's ever seen, and I never call in sick. Therefore, I'm a professional." Saying so doesn't make it so - especially when it comes from someone in the industry. If the word 'professional' is used by those in the industry, then such uses need to be in quotes with an inline citation, like so: Mr. XYZ, a spokesperson for the hospitality industry, has said, "Bouncers are professionals."[1] Just because industry people describe bouncers as professionals doesn't make it so. This article needs a massive overhaul. First, get in touch with a government agency such as the US Department of Labor for a definition of "Bouncing" and other details about the job. Government materials are always reliable and verifiable sources. Next, mundane details need to be covered: how much do bouncers make? Are they salaried or wage earners? Are females employed as bouncers? What about lesbian clubs? Do females work as bouncers in lesbian clubs? Do bouncers need a high school diploma? Are high school dropouts hired as bouncers? How much education does a bouncer need to qualifiy for the job? Two years of college? Four years? Do bouncers receive medical benefits from the employer? Dental benefits? Paid vacation time? What hours do bouncers work? Etc. The images are terrible. There's no reason to think these people are bouncers. The two in the bottom image could just as easily be Mardi Gras revelers or two people attending a Halloween party. There's no reason to think the guy in the top image is a bouncer. It looks like someone snapped his pic on the street and identified the guy as a bouncer in San Francisco. There no reason to think the pic is of a bouncer or of San Francisco! The images should be discarded. ReverendLogos (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were read and I disagree with most of them - this is not an FA process, and you are welcome to add material if you feel it would improve the article. I have removed the "profession" word (and mainly replaced it with "occupation") except where in direct quotes, or where not in the context you disagreed with. Ingolfson (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to get over the check-out girl thing. Sounds to me like, no matter how hard she works or how much pride she takes in her job, she's still nothing more than a check-out girl. Nice. It's good to know there's still straight-laced, traditional conservatives of good, non-check-out related pedigree out there to keep the common people in their place. Makes me wonder why on earth you'd be registered to a community-based, free encyclopedia website in the first place. Anyway, regarding your listed questions/points, they're virtually impossible to properly add here. I mean "Do lesbians work at lesbian bars"? "Do bouncers get dental"? "Paid vacation time"? These are issues decided by individual companies, clubs and employers. They don't apply to an overview of the industry. I also believe we've covered a couple of the questions in the article, such regarding what is necessary to get licensed in various regions. If you would like to add more information regarding licensing and regulation in specific locales and could find and reference these regions yourself, then by all means, please assist us further by doing so. The Cake is a Lie T / C 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my questions should be answered here. Many readers would come to the article with similar questions. While writing an article about bouncing from a sociological perspective and concentrating on the 'macho man' aspect of the job and the 'character' of bouncers is ok, you need to answer the nitty gritty, real world questions about the work. If you check government publications, you would find such information. While wages might vary from one club to another, a government publication would make that clear. A government publication might read for example: "In 2007 in the United States, nightclub bouncing paid on average US$12 an hour. Wages were higher than average on the west coast, particularly in Los Angeles and San Francisco blahblahblahblahblah..." Check it out. These are the kinds of questions many readers would expect to be answered in such an article. ReverendLogos (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ReverendLogos, those items would be interesting if WP:RS could be found. People whose articles I've GA-reviewed will know that I'm quite keen on breadth of coverage. However when suggesting additional topics for an article I generally provide at least examples to show that there are WP:RS. WP:V also places the burden of proof on those who wish to add content. Can you cite any relevant WP:RS? --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you've finished, then I can start the detailed walk-through. BTW:

  • ReverendLogos is right about the source for the 6-ft lady acrobat-turned-bouncer: Stag mag never was WP:RS; the URL's totally dead; so that para will have to go. Never mind, there's plenty of other material here, provided the sources stand up.
    A technical hint: if Google returns a hit and the URL is dead, Google's cache is too short-term to be useful. Instead copy the main URL given by Google (right-click and select "copy URL" in most browsers) then go to the Internet Archive and enter the URL into the WayBack Machine from on that page. If that finds a saved version, use the {{cite web}} template as normal, but add 2 more parameters, archiveurl (=the URL of the page returned by the WayBack Machine) and archivedate (=date when Internet Archive saved the copy).
  • The source for Josef "Sepp" Dietrich also says the SS were formed "to protect Party meetings", I think this is worth a mention. --Philcha (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ReverendLogos, I would like to know why exactly we should add the average pay of bouncers in various cities in the United States? Why precisely would everybody want to know this? Most of the article is based upon Western crowd control as it is, and we are currently attempting to broaden the article's focus by concentrating on security and crowd control in other cultures and regions of the world. Once again, if this is something you feel is entirely necessary, try helping us improve the article by pitching in instead of just pointing and complaining about how biased we are and how our references aren't good enough for you. The amount of time we've spent bickering over this nonsense could have been much better spent researching for the article. You're an editor here as well. Anything you want to add or adjust or reference, you can do so yourself at any point. The Cake is a Lie T / C 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get down to the nitty-gritty if we'ew to wrap this up by mid-Jan. So I'm going section by section (lead last).

Bouncer

[edit]
  • "which may contravene anti-discrimination laws in many Western countries" needs a ref. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • in "bouncers use metal detectors and body searches to prevent patrons from bringing potentially dangerous and illegal items, such as drugs and weapons", the ref supports drugs but not weapons, metal detectors or body searches. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • in "to ensure that club rules and alcohol regulations are adhered to", the source talks about club rules and customers who can't hold their booze, but not about alcohol regulations. BTW Checking trouble at the door covers under-age customers and ID issues. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • re "Also, bouncers must generally resolve conflict within the establishment, which may involve verbal warnings to rule-breakers, separating individuals and groups, or ensuring that troublemakers (i.e. those who become too disorderly, intoxicated, or argumentative) leave the venue", the source supports hardly any of that. The 2 dictionary citations add very little, and most of the supported content is supported adequately by Bouncers & Doormen. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • re "Bouncers can also be responsible for collecting an entry fee, or "cover" and checking for identification (especially in regard to the legal age of customers for entry and alcohol consumption). In some venues, bouncers may have the subjective task of "separating the 'in-crowd' from the 'out-crowd'"", next to none of this is supported by the IMDB entry. If you mean it's supported by the DVD, use {{cite video}} - you still use the URL param to provide further info, but then the accessdate paarma musy say when you accessed it (format yyyy-mm-dd). In fact the in-/out-crowd bit is supported by the following ref (Times of India). --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bouncers may also escort employees (particularly female staff) to and from the venue, and in rare cases, may act as bodyguards for VIPs, celebrities, or management within the venue." needs a ref --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Checking trouble at the door, "Most bouncers work only part time and have a different full-time job during the day. Others, like Carl Marcelin, are students who bounce to earn spending money and help pay for their education" looks worth using. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "Some venues equip their staff with in-ear walkie-talkies to stay in contact. A small number of bars also use digital cameras connected to biometric devices such as facial recognition software to alert staff to the presence of known troublemakers and individuals that have been barred from the venue, or possibly even from other venues", the ref covers only facial recognition. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "Other terms used may be 'door staff', 'floor staff', and 'door supervisor' (in the United Kingdom)", the source uses only 'door supervisor'. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such terms are more precise than generic terms like 'security guard' or 'security officer' insofar as they describe the main location of duty" needs a ref. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supervisor

[edit]
  • Re "A security supervisor (also called a "head bouncer" or "cooler") is an employee who oversees the security for a venue and supervises bouncers and other security staff:
  • Bisons in bar brawl? supports none of Security supervisors are usually security staff members with many years of experience and good conflict resolution skills. A security supervisor's primary function is to organise and support security personnel and ensure the maximum level of safety for his/her staff and customers. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd para has no refs. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • The whole of the preamble (2 paras) lacks refs. Thisis imprtant because you are clearly presenting an interpretatnio rather than summarising facts that are supported by refs in the sub-sections. In addition it looks too much like an ad. Let's face, bouncers started as hired / bought muscle and the only people they had to please were their employers / masters. The "honorific" and "professionalisation" were later developments, and to this day in most of the world bouncers still "muscle". I'd scrap the entire preamble. --Philcha (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsections of this one should have regular lower-level headings. Starting a para with ";" generates and HTML construct (DL, DT and DT tags) that's meant to be used for glossaries. --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with scrapping it. What's with the non sequitur about a trend that occurred in the 90s and 00s, rather than discussing any notable history. There's no content at all... It's complete rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andythechef (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient times

[edit]

In modern times

[edit]

19th century

[edit]

20th century

[edit]

Outside studies

[edit]


Inside studies

[edit]
  • Re "violence itself was the defining characteristic, a "culture created around violence and violent expectation"", I think you're actually being hard on bouncers here, as the study makes it plain that bouncers' jobs focus round dealing with appalling behaviour by people who are often just plain nasty. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character

[edit]

Excessive force

[edit]

Alternatives

[edit]

Canada

[edit]

New Zealand

[edit]
  • "In New Zealand, there is no national-level regulation of bouncers as of 2006" - what about 2009? I'd drop this sentence, as it may reflect absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence. --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the Security Association, they stand to gain by regulation, so I'd drop them. What matters that the emplyers, the Hospitality Assoc, are coming round to the same view. --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore

[edit]

UK

[edit]

US

[edit]
  • Should not use paras beginning with ";" as sub-headings (see above). In this case a bullet list would be fine, the you can start the 1st item e.g. (In California ..." --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re California, the source says plenty about training, mentions batons but nothing about "criminal background check, including submitting their fingerprints to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation" --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last Call for the Falls? redirects othe site's home page, i.e. the cited page has gone. In any case it's a blog entry. The text of the refs says "with further references". I think you need tofind an archived copy (see below) and then find its refs. --Philcha (talk)

General notes on citations

[edit]
  • Book citations should generally include page numbers - page=X or pages=X-Y. I usually try to give chapter title as well, in case overseas editions, later editions, etc. have different page numbering. See {{cite book}}
  • Exception: for dictionaries, encyclopedias and other things arranged alphabetically, I generally use {{citation}} with contribution=name of the item, as {{cite book}} does not support (i.e. ignores) contribution=.
  • All URLs must have accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD.
  • Where a web page reproduces a book, cite the book. When it reproduces a journal article, cite the artcile (see e.g. Get Ready To Duck), using {{cite journal}}.
  • Avoid giving the full citation details more than once. Use <ref name="think-of-a-name">{{ cite ... }}</ref> the first time, and <ref name="think-of-a-name" /> on subsequent uses - and the / before the > is vital. Tastes differ about ref names: some use short ones, e.g. "Bloggs2005" or "Bloggs2005p107". I prefer longer ones that include an abbreviated title, as that reminds me what the source is about when I'm editing, re-arranging, etc. Develop your own style.
  • For checking links, use User:Dispenser/Checklinks, e.g. here's the links check for this article. Later in the review I'll check this report myself to ensure that there are no problem links.
    • Any code other than 200 in the first column is at least a potential issue, and 404 means "not found", i.e. you got a problem - try the WayBack Machine. Note that if you use pages saved there, you must specify url=original url, archiveurl=url of page as returned by the WayBack Machine and archivedate=date of the saved copy - as well as accessdate=.
    • The third col shows the parameters used in the citation, if you used a citation template - looks like this artcile contains only bare urls. You've got some work to do there.
  • Get into the habit of using citation templates. Strictly speaking they're not mandatory and hand-typing equivalent output is officially acceptable - but that could change anytime. --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No

[edit]
Pilcha, I don't want to ask you to water down your standards (though I think you should have a look at this some day - but you have made over 70 (!) change requests. I am officially now giving this up. Fail the GA request. I do not care anymore. What would I have to do for an FA? Swear on my immortal soul to pledge my unborn children and their children's children to forever maintain and expand the subject article? Sorry - no. Ingolfson (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an FA? - "just" comply with all of WP:MOS :-) Philcha (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunate. This has been Ingolfson's baby since the beginning, and I was just the support guy trying to lend a hand where I could to lift some of the burden. In all honesty, I can understand why Ingolfson has called it quits, and I hardly blame him, as this is just the final straw in a long line of straws in the last 1 1/2 or 2 years since the rewrite of this article first began. Philcha, at the same time I wouldn't expect you to lower your standards, and I realise that every reviewer has their own idea of what a GA or FA article should consist of, but, as it stands, I will not be able to fulfil the requirements necessary for Bouncer (doorman) to be awarded GA status. I work ten hours a day, six days a week and have zero access to computers during this time. To be entirely honest and practical here, Philcha, if I were to go this alone, it would be sometime in the second half of this year before it were completed. Unfortunately, I'd say this leaves only one option at this point. The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Cake is a Lie, thanks for being so honest.
Re "every reviewer has their own idea of what a GA or FA article should consist of", in principle that's not true - see Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The criteria specify what (relatively few) parts of WP:MOS apply, and are quite uncompromising about WP:V and WP:NPOV. The most subjective area of Wikipedia:Good article criteria is "Broad coverage" (rather than the "comprehensive" coverage demanded for FA), but that's not a problem in this article.
I'll leave it until the end of this Saturday to see if Ingolfson changes his mind. --Philcha (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response and the reference problems remain un-remedied, I must conclude that this article has failed to reach GA standard. I find this as frustrating as I'm sure you do. --Philcha (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody will finish off what needs to be done sooner or later. I'll probably drop in to add a point or two every now and then and monitor it's current condition for vandalism. As it stands, the article is hardly what I would call "poor", so I'm not altogether fussed by this turn of events. The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please post review comments / responses above this line - - - - -

File:1766
Terry McPhillips

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwest Bar Manager (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bouncer/GA1&oldid=1142754601"