Talk:Boxers NYC Washington Heights/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: Gerald Waldo Luis (talk · contribs) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this! Same old usual: if I don't talk about it, that means it's all good. One thing I notice is the lack of images: I'd love an image of the place itself. Gerald WL 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Nice to see you again! I wish I had a picture of this place to add to the article, but sadly I don't. Armadillo pteryx 00:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillopteryx, I see, no problem. Next, before getting to the prose rabbit hole, I see that File:Boxers WaHi logo.png has some "n.a."s in the non-free rationale box; since it's fillable I'd recommend filling it. Author parameter should probably also be filled in. This is so that I can tick up criterion 6a in the progress box. Gerald WL 12:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Armadillo pteryx 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillopteryx, sorry for the wait, some school stuff has lagged me from catching up with the watchlist. Anyway, I'll start a prose review soon. Should be done today... if I even can. Gerald WL 02:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: No worries! I'm pretty busy, too. Armadillo pteryx 02:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The bar's September 2018 debut was met with concern that it would contribute to gentrification of the area, but its approval was straightforward, and the venue proved to be popular. During its operation, it received praise for its comfortable, welcoming atmosphere." I'd recommend combining these: "The bar's September 2018 debut was met with concern that it would contribute to gentrification of the area, but its approval was straightforward, and the venue proved to be popular, with praise for its comfortable, welcoming atmosphere." Gerald WL 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the text per this suggestion, but I kept it as two sentences rather than one long run-on. Armadillo pteryx 23:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It featured weekly events such as Latin nights, karaoke parties, urban nights, open mic events, drag shows, and screenings of NFL games and RuPaul's Drag Race." I'd recommend moving this bit to right after the first sentence. So it's Definition-Contents-History. Gerald WL 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Armadillo pteryx 23:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add alt text to images. Gerald WL 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only image is the logo in the infobox, and there is no logo_alt field. Armadillo pteryx 23:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Armadillopteryx, shame there isn't. But there's one for the images; for now, can it just be switched to the image parameter? But if it breaks the quality or something it doesn't matter. Gerald WL 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I'm not too sure what best practice is here. Maybe Another Believer could offer some insight? Armadillo pteryx 22:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Armadillopteryx, I'd leave the logo in the logo field and not worry about alt text if there's not a dedicated field. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So in the infobox, you cited some stuff: the owners, and dates. In my common practice this is not needed, as the body has already said it. The infobox is a supplement to the lead, so should be treated like a lead, that doesn't need citation when it doesn't. Gerald WL 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I often see certain facts, such as these, cited in the infobox as well, but it doesn't really matter. I've removed the citations per your request. Armadillo pteryx 22:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 2, the IG post, is titled "Untitled". I think you can write what the image says, instead of having an awkward title. Gerald WL 15:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Armadillo pteryx 22:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Since there's still no article on Boxers NYC (and even if there is one), it should be briefly established what Boxers NYC is. The name itself is vulnerable to wrong assumptions. Gerald WL 15:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Armadillo pteryx 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article constantly changes its referral of the establishment, from "Boxers Washington Heights" to "Boxers WaHi" to "Washington Heights." Needs consistency. Gerald WL 15:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are sourced and established as common names in the lead sentence; is there an issue with using them as synonyms? As for the last one, the establishment is never referred to as "Washington Heights". Any occurrences of "Washington Heights" by itself refer to the neighborhood, not the bar. Armadillo pteryx 22:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Armadillopteryx, referrals should be consistent for a more precise reading flow. Say the COVID-19 pandemic article. We can't switch from calling it "COVID-19 pandemic" to "COVID pandemic" to "corona pandemic" all the time. If calling it "Boxers Washington Heights" is preferred, it must be referred to as such throughout the body. Gerald WL 11:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, I'm not sure I agree. "Boxers Washington Heights" and "Boxers WaHi" are both MOS:COMMONNAMEs for this establishment. "Corona pandemic" and "COVID pandemic", though descriptive and clear, are not COMMONNAMEs for the COVID-19 pandemic. RS don't typically use that language. I can make this change if you prefer, but I don't believe there's anything in the MOS against the use of established, synonymous names throughout. Armadillo pteryx 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Boxers Washington Heights was a gay sports bar"-- maybe briefly mention that its located in NYC? Gerald WL 15:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence does end with in New York City. Armadillo pteryx 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Armadillopteryx, I think you're confusing this comment with the lead (we're talking the first section), but never mind, I found it's all covered in the history section. Gerald WL 11:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"including NFL game screenings"-- "NFL" should be "National Football League (NFL)". Gerald WL 15:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. X-Editor (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
X-Editor, it's still not done. Gerald WL 11:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
X-Editor did make this change but put it in the lead. I've moved it to the body. Armadillo pteryx 13:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay! Promoting this.... Gerald WL 12:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for the review! Armadillo pteryx 18:39, 12 March 2021 (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.