Talk:Bailey's Taproom/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: BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) 23:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples Putting this discussion on your radar, just in case. There was some shenanigans over at the Good article nomination for another restaurant article nominated by me. Sharing on the off chance you were contacted as well. Thanks, looking forward to addressing any concerns you may have re: Good article eligibility. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this @Another Believer: that's really weird! I'll respond there because this keeps getting stranger. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, very weird and very icky. I do not appreciate people targeting me in this way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:56, 5 January 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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	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.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall the page looks solid, it just needs minor tweaks for phrasing.

Lead

• Can we change the first line from "Popular among beer aficionados, and visited by tourists," > "It was a popular destination for craft beer tourism,"
• "it was noted as having a meaningful influence on the city's beer culture in this period." Also, is it possible to talk more about how the might have influenced or altered Portland's beer culture? Outside of hosting events, this isn't that clear in the article. If it is mostly referring to the bar's centrality and popularity, than maybe change the line to something like: "it was a noted promoter of the city's beer culture."
  • I've made these changes for now, in an attempt to make the lead more consistent with other restaurant GAs I've promoted. Another editor actually drafted this lead. I've removed the "beer culture" bit, but kept the link to craft beer tourism per your suggestion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• The Upper Lip is mentioned in the lead, the part about the bar's closure, and the Reception. Is it possible to add any more information about it?
  •  Doing... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Reception

• The paragraph on coverage by the Willamette Week could probably be condensed. Could you add a summary sentence like "The Willamette Week named the establishment one of the best bars in Portland on several occasions." Quotes and additional descriptions of the bar by journalists can be kept, as well as the reader's poll.

• I've made these changes. I kept mention of Matthew Korfhage's 2018 list since this one's for the entire state of Oregon, not just Portland. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• The part about the bar being the first to install the DigitalPour software is interesting, and should probably be added to the main part of the article along with a year for when this was.

• I didn't want to interfere with User:Alalch E.'s changes to the article. I agree, the DigitalPour bit is interesting, but I didn't go into too much detail since DigitalPour is not a notable topic. I'm actually OK with Alalch E.'s changes to the article, but if you feel strongly about adding more detail to the article's prose, I'm open to specific suggestions from either of you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarity

• "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Bailey's operated in Ankeny Square and via delivery.[22]" This line isn't that clear to readers, did the bar move to Ankeny or temporarily open some kind of pop-up there in addition to delivery?

• Ankeny Square is a nearby outdoor space. I'm not sure if Bailey's had an outdoor pop-up, or if wait staff just walked over drinks from the brick and mortar bar, since people couldn't drink in the venue itself. Here, delivery generally refers to food delivery. I've added this link, but if you have any specific suggestion re: Ankeny Square, I'm all ears! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• "the taproom also served a few rare and unusual beers from further afield." Is it possible to be more specific than this? Ref1 (The Great American Ale Trail) says that bar stocked beers from Oregon and sometimes California or Washington, that can be used if it's a representative geographic range.

• Ref 15 is not more specific, but I've changed to "California and Washington" per Ref 1 (your suggestion), along with the inline citation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Excessive quotations

This is more a personal nitpick than a major issue, but it would be nice to use fewer quotes and more original phrasing in the "Description" and "History" section. Some of the quotes seem generic enough that it should be easy to summarize in your own words. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I hope this helps a bit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I've uploaded a few Flickr images to Wikimedia Commons. I've added a few more here for illustrative purposes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Another Believer: I think this one is ready to promote! BuySomeApples (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about advertising and criteria 3b

To my opinion, it fails criterion 3b and reads like advertising. The Banner talk 14:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC) :Which text is problematic? Please be specific. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) The whole article is on big advertisement to my opinion. The Banner talk 15:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) I've drafted a neutral overview based on Wikipedia-appropriate sources. This article is consistent with the 50+ restaurant entries I've promoted to Good article status. If you aren't going to be specific then I'm not sure how to address your concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @The Banner: The bar closed down 2 years ago so I don't understand how this page could be "one big advertisement". I'm still reviewing the page and will pay extra attention with regards to 3b (WP:ARTICLESIZE) since you think that's a major area of improvement. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC) I have written multiple articles about restaurants. But to my opinion, extensive use of reviews and laying out the menu is bringing it close to advertising in style. Adding more does not always make an article better. The Banner talk 09:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC) I, too, have written many articles about restaurants. I've promoted more than 50 to Good status. Again, you're welcome to identify specifically problematic text. Otherwise this is just drive-by criticism. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Yes, I have also read the COI-concerns of another editor about your editing. To my opinion, that is a bit rough to say but not impossible. With your habit to push as much details into the articles, irrelevant or not, you sure are vulnerable for that suspicion. As stated many times before, more is not always better. That you wish to dismiss critical remarks about your articles is natural as writer, but it is free to others to be critical. The Banner talk 13:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Yes, someone is convinced I'm being paid to write about (defunct?) Portland restaurants. That's not true. Not sure what else to do about the accusations. I welcome article improvements on Wikipedia, always. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC) @The Banner: I can see that you're not pleased with the current state of the page, but unless you have specific constructive criticism aimed at meeting GA criteria I'd prefer if you didn't use this page to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm in the process of reviewing this page, and side conversations will only distract from any feedback I might have. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Good to know that the Good Article Status has nothing to do with being a good article but just with ticking of a checklist. The way my sincere concerns are waved away, makes a joke of the process. The Banner talk 08:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)