Talk:Three Sisters Tavern/Archive 1

Sources

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Three Sisters Tavern/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Valereee (talk · contribs) 00:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Val, and I'd like to start this review. It seems to be clean of copyvios and stable. I think we can start with the criteria for GA. Another Believer, is this a good time for you? valereee (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your time and willingness to help. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	I made a couple of minor changes, but the writing seems fine. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section seems overdetailed as to the history of ownership. I don't think we really need all these names. I'd suggest something like John and Georgia Katchis started the family business in 1964. John died four months later, survived by his wife and three daughters. Following Georgia's death in 1997, their daughter Sotiria "Sandra" and her husband Athanasios "Saki" Elftherios Katsavopoulos acquired ownership of the business and began catering to Portland's gay community. The bar was founded in 1964 and began catering to Portland's gay community in 1997 following the deaths of the original owners. In addition I think the history section ditto w/re: the names and nicknames of the entire family. The only names that are important are the original owners and the next owners, and we don't need all those middle names for people who aren't themselves notable. Thoughts? I amended the wording in the lead per your recommendation. I do disagree with you, though, regarding the names of the other family members. TST was a family business and if multiple sources mentioned their names, I am inclined to keep them as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] It looks like all three of the sources were obituaries, which as a matter of course often name all survivors by their full names and nicknames. I'm not sure an obituary can be seen as a reliable source for purposes of determining what is and what isn't notable. I see an obit as very similar to a press release -- might be useful for providing noncontroversial content, but isn't useful for asserting notability of that content. Are there any other sources that mention those names? valereee (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] You are right. That makes sense to me. Do you propose a specific change to the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Well, maybe something along the lines of: The couple were survived by their three daughters, one of whom, ~~: Maria "Mary" Boyer, Polyxeni "Pauline" Gustafson, and~~, Sotiria "Sandra" Katsavopoulos [4] with her husband ~~Sandra and her husband~~ Athanasios "Saki" ~~Elftherios~~ Katsavopoulos, ~~who died in 2010,~~ acquired ownership and began catering to Portland's gay community, eventually turning Three Sisters into a gay bar and strip club.[2][3][5] ? Thoughts? Done I like it! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
	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).	I've checked all the sources, and they support the assertions/quotes. It's not the NYT, but there are multiple mentions in gay-oriented publications, and the material isn't contentious, so I'm going to call them reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The 'See also' section refers to the Burnside Triangle, which is apparently a gay-entertainment district? Was this bar in that area? If so, maybe a mention of that. Done. Let me know if the descriptor is too long or needs different wording. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Questions that aren't answered: Was the bar just a typical neighborhood bar until 1997? Why the change to a gay bar? And why did it close in 2004? I wondered these as well, and my research did not provide answers. I simply added to the article what could be found in reliable sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I, too, find no sources that would answer these questions; too bad, but if it's not out there, it's not out there! valereee (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not sure about the numerous long quotes -- let's discuss whether they may comprise unnecessary detail. Sure. I think the paragraph reads well, but I am happy to discuss potential improvements. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I think it's probably borderline...don't think it's anything that should cause a GA fail, at any rate. Maybe we call it just a difference in editing style? :) valereee (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm marking this yes because it certainly meets the requirements for GA, but for future reference it would be great if there were an interior shot, if a creative commons one is out there. Agreed, and I've searched for images of TST itself, without success. Even a Google image search doesn't offer options for uploading with a fair use license. I figured recent images of the building that housed the tavern were better than nothing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Got an opinion from an experienced reviewer, they agree it meets GA standard

quickie stuff accomplished

Okay, I've done all the stuff I can do fast. The rest is stuff that will take me some time, but in the meantime we can discuss the comments I've made. valereee (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting oversight

I've finished the review, but I'd like to get a quick second opinion from an experienced GA reviewer, as this is only my second GA review. I want to just confirm that I'm not passing an article that doesn't meet the critieria w/re: my concerns mentioned in 2b, 3a, and 3b. valereee (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thank you for taking time to review the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (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.