Talk:Bridges Cafe/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Another Believer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 01:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply


Lead

  • the cafe was purchased by Tom and Laura Lane-Ruckman — "soon purchased"? But only if there's a cite.

Description

History

Reception

  • She considered — It's generally good practice to avoid stating what people think (which we can only guess at—at best, we know what she said she thought), and instead state what people said.
  • Are there any other reviews/mentions of this? Have you been through newspapers.com?
    • I've searched the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library. I am not registered to use newspapers.com, but I just did a search for "Bridges Cafe" on the site and there appear to be 6 returns in Oregon. I would assume these are likely sources I've already used in the article, but of course I'm not certain. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Images

  • Minor point, but I don't suppose there are photos that predate the closing? A bit odd to have the windows filled with "available" signs. But I understand if that's not doable.
    • I would most definitely welcome other/earlier images, but none are currently available at Commons and I was glad to at least get these before the business was fully replaced by another. I believe I posted an image request at WikiProject Oregon, in case any project members happened to have any photographs. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

References

  • I take it only some The Oregonian articles are online, hence why only some have links?
  • #10 (Butler 2005) — Is the asterisk really in the headline?
  • #12 (Russell 2021) — Is that really the headline? And given that it's only two months old, I'd expect that (more than the older The Oregonian articles) would be online.
  • Any reason Weinstein 2017 is used only as an external link, and not a source?
    • Well, I wasn't really sure if the Eliot Neighborhood Association was considered an appropriate journalistic source. I'm not opposed to editors potentially using this source in the future, but I think that'd be more of a talk page discussion and hopefully only including as an external link for now is fine for a Good article review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Overall

  • Looks pretty good, Another Believer. It would be nice if there are more sources to find—maybe here, and here (p. 2, where the mention is)—but I understand that may be simply not the case. In any event, some comments are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Usernameunique, Thanks so much! I agree, once libraries are back open, there may be a couple ways to add a few more details to this entry, but I'd like to think this is a solid foundation for an article and one which meets criteria. Please let me know if any concerns still need to be addressed further. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Another Believer, I agree that this article is well on the way there. But looking now, I was able to pretty easily find some more sources—including one which says when the café opened—by doing a Google search for "Bridget Bayer" "Bridges Cafe". See 1, 2, 3 (these three are paywalled, but if you open them and quickly click "Esc", you can read them), 4 (among other things, "Bridget: Yes, I opened Bridges in 1994 and sold it in 2000."). The Los Angeles Times piece, plus the two newspapers.com articles I clipped above, suggest there might be some material to be added about beer brewing as well. You might also Google "Lane-Ruckman" "Bridges Cafe". --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Usernameunique, Good finds! Unfortunately, I am unable to view the local business journal articles no matter how hard I try. Can you tell if there are any additional details worth incorporating into the article? I do not think we should use the Spark a Career website, which is a low-quality, non-journalistic source. I'm surprised by 1994, though, since the Wikipedia entry currently says late 1990s for the opening. I will work to add the Los Angeles Times source appropriately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I've incorporated the Los Angeles Times piece. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I've incorporated the "Making a difference on MLK" piece into the article. This really helped fill in a few of the history gaps. 1 down, 1 to go... ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I've incorporated the "cozy" piece as well, but minimally. This is mostly about Bayer and community activities, not Bridges. Also, this piece was published by the same author on the same date as the "Making a difference" piece, so I think we should treat these companion sources as one. Definitely worth including, but there's not much detail here specifically about the restaurant. How's this looking to you, User:Usernameunique? Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Looks good, Another Believer, passing now. It's a cool article, on a small sliver of history. A couple closing comments: 1) I see you added 1994 to the article, is it only backed up by the "Spark a Career" source? If so, I think you should still add that source—and use it for just the one point—so readers know where that claim is coming from. 2) Is there anything you can use from these: article; amicus brief (about which there was some press, and probably more if you look)? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Just noticed that you already identified the first source on the talk page. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Usernameunique, The 1994 is NOT sourced by Spark a Career, so I think best not to use this website. Thanks for the review! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 4 March 2021 (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.