Talk:The Queen's Head (Portland, Oregon)/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: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will start this one soon. Vaticidalprophet 10:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: Just making sure this is still on your radar. Happy to address any concerns you may have. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking at it!

My first comments to make: I'm wondering a little about the structure of the article. I read through the sources when I picked this up, and noticed additional details that aren't incorporated (e.g. the founder's preferences for the aesthetic/style of performers, and focus on the food, mentioned here). Considering that and that we're talking about a defunct bar, so one for which everything is history, it seems a little more natural to have a somewhat different structure to the one currently presented:

"Description" header is good, but "History" could be reworked into a subheader of it, and possibly focus on something more like "Opening" (this means you only have a single section, but fewer sections in a short article can be useful for mobile accessibility)
- In that subsection, write about Bund's intent in opening the bar, experiences in London and the East Coast, desire to open a gay bar in an area that used to have more of an LGBT community, desire to revitalize downtown (talked about here but also not mentioned much in the article)
Another subheading can combine part of what's in "Description" now and part of what's in "History" now -- talking about the sorts of events the bar hosted, the exhibitions it had, the media coverage it received -- a generalized subsection about what the bar was like, essentially, which right now is split between a couple different places
Another that's the current "Menu" subheading
Another that's the current Pinq/Closure subheading -- possibly this could be a section header by itself, as it's of a fairly different type to the rest of the article, and might serve different readers

These are suggestions, but I think they could really work in a direction of improving the article's flow and readability. Right now, some core information is a little scattered. The information about the bar's events and Bund's intent in founding it are split between two different sections, but the people reading to find out that information are likely to want it in the same place. I linked some official WMF research about how readers interact with articles -- usually, on mobile, it's quite uncommon for them to open multiple section headers, and the majority of pageviews are on mobile. Considering that, it's a good idea to keep similar information under the same section header.

I also noticed some information in the sources that might be useful in the article and isn't currently included. I've mentioned a couple of those already, but when I was reading the Pinq sources, I noticed there were a lot of problems they faced (e.g. the bar's refrigeration system breaking down shortly before the intended opening) that weren't mentioned much in the article. Given this business was so short-lived, it'd be good to have some additional information like that about the problems Queen's Head/Pinq faced that led to them closing so early. Vaticidalprophet 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the framework for this article is very similar to the many other restaurant/bar entries I've promoted to Good article status: Description (with or without a subsection for Menu, depending on the amount of detail), History, and Reception. In this case, reception was mostly Brooke Jackson-Glidden noting how the venue's brand of drag was unique for Portland, which I've folded into the History section. I've also simplified the section heading a bit. I've kept the closure/Pinq content as a subsection of History since this is directly related to the operational history of the business. I've added a bit more on the series of hardships Pinq experienced before closing. These are my initial thoughts but happy to revisit as needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, sorry to leave you hanging -- I won't be able to finish this review due to other commitments, but I'll put it back in the nomination stack (which will keep it in the same spot it was in on the list). I'll see if I can get another editor to pick it up soon, and the backlog drive is coming up, so hopefully another editor will be around to review it soon. Vaticidalprophet 05:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet Thanks for the heads up. Do you know if the next reviewer will use this page, or should this discussion be closed so a new review page can be created? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.