Talk:Purr Cocktail Lounge/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: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 23:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm impressed to find that I only have one comment on the prose, albeit a minor one. I'm passing this article due to the lack of issues- very nicely done. One thing I did spot were some dates and authors missing from references- though not a GA criteria item, it would be good to fix. Nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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.	...through Cher's 'Woman's World'. - remove wl from Cher, since the album is linked. I'm impressed to find no other issues. Prose is clear and free of typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No fiction, words to watch, or lists. Lead is well-written.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations are placed in a proper "References" section.
	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).	Sources are from magazines or websites, none look suspicious. All good here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking the following, selected at random: Ref 3 (Werner 2011): good Ref 8 (Clement 2006): good Ref 12 (Rodriguez 2014): good Ref 19 (Seattle Metropolitan 2009): good Ref 34 (Graham 2018): good Ref 35 (Out Traveler 2007): good All come up clear- no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations- high scores on some sources are due to names and quotes, so it's all good. I'll note that the article is rather quote heavey, but in my opinion, it's justified.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the bar's history and reception, and provides a "Description" section. Good here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
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.	Images are relevant and properly captioned.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Photos are properly CC tagged. Logo is properly fair use tagged.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.