Talk:Sip 'n Dip Lounge

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sip 'n Dip Lounge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 19:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Looks interesting! I'll review. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Recognition

• This section is both small and seemingly out of place. At least in movie and music articles, reception isn't included until near the end of the article.
  • True, but it's why the whole place is notable. I think having it right up front in some form is what will draw people in. I'm open to moving it, but I'm wondering if we have other restaurant and bar articles we can compare it to before I do so? --MTBW

Entertainment

• Why isn't Ms. Spoonheim's actual name listed? [1][2]
  • It was in the lede, I'll add it again in the body text. KRTV misspelled it, there is one "o" in all other souces (good find, by the way) ;-) Better? --MTBW
• Is it worth noting that they've increased the amount of entertainment? It was just two nights a week for mermaids in 2006.[3]
  • Another good find, I noted that the first mermaid was one in 1995. I think that adding that Missoulian article is a good idea. Hang tight and see what I'll have added in the next round of edits. --MTBW Follow up: Couldn't find a real graceful way to say "just weekends in 2006" and the company web site is not specific, so just stuck with CNN for now - though I am not certain they swim five nights a week always, and I doubt all six women work every night, I suspect fewer at a time, at least on weeknights. --MTBW
• Are you able to confirm that the mermaids are also the wait staff? [4] This article says the reporter "recruits" their waitress to go in, but I presume this wasn't a one-off?
  • I'd say no on this one - I kind of think that was a one-off for the Missoulian reporter. Nothing on it in current sources, though there is a photo of a mermaid holding a plate of drinks by the bar on the company web site, current material and sources suggest they are hired exclusively to swim nowdays,... --MTBW
• Is it clear that the pool remains open to the public?
  • It is, I don't know if we need to source that? (I did) I was in the bar a year or so ago - in the afternoon - and there was just a bunch of kids in the pool, swimming down to the window and looking into the bar. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, what is written is good, just let me know what you think of the above possible additions. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I like your ideas, sit tight and I'll fiddle with the article some more and then ping you when I'm done. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zanimum:, Pinging you - I've made some changes, added a lot of material from the Missoulian article, see what you think. Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff, lookin' fine. GA! -- Zanimum (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am not doing a proper GA review on this article, but as a brief comment, the article as it is now meets my expectations of what a GA article for a place like this should be. If there are problems with it then they are not immediately apparent to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Congrats on the article's promotion! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Long quotes in citations

Seems no reason for endless long direct quotes in the citations and all that direct quoting could raise copyvio problems if it is too extensive. Montanabw^(talk) 09:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The Missoulian quotation was long. My reasoning there was that (a) it was brief compared to the very lengthy source text, (b) it was heavily ellipsed... and [bracketed], and (c) it wasn’t part of the article body and didn’t seek to supersede the copyrighted material.

For all those reasons, it seemed to fall outside Wikipedia’s recommendations against long quotations,^[5] but within Wikipedia’s scope of fair use,^[6] but, in an abundance of caution, I’ll leave the Missoulian article’s “quote” parameter blank for now.

The other reverted quotations^[7][8] included only excerpts from passages that support the Wikipedia article’s claims, which is the intended use of the citation templates’ “quote” parameter, and, I might be wrong, but copying a single sentence for a quoted citation shouldn’t concern us.

Thoughts?

LLarson (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: At Wikipedia, we’re asked to revert only when necessary, and even when it is necessary, it’s still “preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit”^[9] because the “complete reversal of ... edits ... cannot help an article converge on a consensus version” (emphasis in the original).^[10] I tried to keep this in mind when I reverted your work.

I’m wishing I’d brought this up immediately, but I didn’t, so please do assume my good faith here. This message is not reaction to being reverted, and I’m not trying to question your good faith or your good intent—we both obviously have ties to Montana —but the comments you left in the article’s wikitext^[11] about when the outdoor patio opens (“<!-- summer is June 15 to September 15-->”) and who was on hand when the window broke (“<!--not just bar staff, Motel staff also-->”) makes me want to make sure you understand Wikipedia’s broad understanding of conflict of interest. When there’s a hint that an editor is in a position that someone else might take advantage of—even if they were to do it inadvertently, and even with good faith—it “undermines the public’s confidence in Wikipedia”^[12] which would be bad for everybody.

(KAK)! LLarson (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. I will assume good faith and I spent about a half-hour following the initial revert, meticulously combing through your edits to restore some of them - it is better to revert to a "clean" version and then, carefully - add in what can improve the status quo. Not reverting often means an undesired change is more easily missed. I see no reason to have huge, long quotes with every single reference in the footnotes. I know of no MOS requirement to do so, just because a parameter exists doesn't mean it has to be used. (the best use of the quote parameter in citations I have seen is when there are foreign language sources being cited and the original language needs to be quoted, e.g. Finnhorse) I tried to keep most of the helpful text edits to the main article, though I missed a few. (I really think "the magazine GQ" sounds clunky and "GQ magazine" is better, but I'm not going to edit-war over it.) I also don't really see why all the refs needed archive links when they are live links, but as the archive seems to do no harm, I guess thy could stay. I have no clue why you think I have a COI on the article - I don't, all material is linked to assorted news articles and other sources. I did go to the bar and take a few photos and shot a brief video of Piano Pat (unfortunately, can't use it because she's singing a copyrighted song by Johnny Cash). The comments in hidden text reflect the reality of a calendar - the equinoxes are June 15 to September 15, and "warmer months" instead of summer is less precise and doesn't reflect the source. And the second hidden text indicates that the source stated that the staff of the facility worked, not just the bar employees - and it's a motel, not a hotel, if one must be precise. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw: At Wikipedia, we’re all working together on one of the biggest endeavors humankind has ever undertaken. This work takes a village, and the more people here, and the more input, the better. This isn’t my encyclopedia and it’s not yours: it’s ours and that’s great! 

The more time we spend on Talk pages, the less time we spend on Articles, which hurts everyone. Analogously, let’s remember that we’re volunteering for humankind. If the editors on ISIS’s talk page can work together, then the editors of an encyclopedia article about a tiki bar in Montana can definitely interact professionally.  In that spirit, I really want to work with you to make this an article whose quality we can both appreciate.

Although no article here is mine, and none is yours, I have, in an abundance of caution, carefully addressed each of your concerns.

1. When your reversion summary said that “we don't need the extensive notes in citations”,^[13] I recognized that not needing part of a citation is a luxury, however, as this experience will help illustrate below, the more complete the citation, the better for everyone – researchers, editors, me, and you. In my own research, I’ve come across enough broken links at Wikipedia – some Internet Archive​d, many simply gone forever – to want to ensure that experience doesn’t happen to others. The easiest way to show you how helpful we can find the citation templates’ “quote” parameter is in how I misunderstood how you’d come across the information about who was on hand for an accident that took place 11 years ago. I thought you’d actually been there for it, or had first-hand information. As it happens, you were quoting from a citation.
2. The notion that the “relevant guideline is WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN”^[14] is helpful in understanding what you mean. I address WP:BURDEN first:
   1. WP:BURDEN, concerning “responsibility for providing citations” supports exactly what I did, almost to the letter: where citations were meager and lacking, I beefed them up. That’s exactly what that Wikipedia policy prescribes. Reversions, however, of beefed up references, are exactly the opposite of what WP:BURDEN recommends.
   2. WP:BRD, concerning a bold–revert–discuss edit–lifecycle, is not a Wikipedia policy nor is it a Wikipedia guideline, and even though I don’t believe that either of us has comported with what WP:BRD calls for, I’m here to discuss your concerns and to build consensus. I address this in good faith:
      1. WP:BRD is only triggered after a bold edit. An edit that comports with WP:BURDEN, almost to the letter, is not bold. But, even if we considered that such an edit were “bold”, WP:BRD still cautions editors that:
      2. “Care ... should be exercised”
      3. “diplomacy should be exercised”, that
      4. editors should “be considerate and patient”, it says that
      5. editors may revert an edit, but only “if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement”, moreover,
      6. Even WP:BRD says that “BRD is never a reason for reverting”^[15] (emphasis in the original) and even “BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once”^[16] (emphasis in the original)
3. When your revert summary referred to my editing as a “drive by”^[17] and later explained that “it is better to revert to a "clean" version and then, carefully - add in what can improve the status quo”^[18] (emphasis added), it made me want to make sure you were aware that at Wikipedia it’s a policy: we play nice,^[19]  and no matter who it is that comes along and edits work we’ve submitted, they’re entitled to as long as their work is within the scope of Wikipedia policy – no matter how much time and effort we put into building pages, once we hit submit, that content belongs to everyone.
4. Finnhorse: You mentioned that “the best use of the quote parameter in citations”^[20] that you “have seen is when there are foreign language sources being cited and the original language needs to be quoted”^[21] as it is in the Finnhorse article. In studying it, I can see how that method would be handy for sources in languages I don’t speak, but I can’t find any Wikipedia policies that recommend that article’s method of source quoting (where a non‑English passage is quoted, but the quotation is interspersed with English translations). What I have found is that “editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page”^[22] and that when editors are in doubt, they should err on the side of populating citations. Wikipedia’s list of policies itself says that “Articles should cite sources whenever possible” (emphasis added).
5. MOS:CITE is a policy that directs editors: “do not revert the good‑faith addition of partial citations”.^[23]

In the interest of consensus building, let me address the other items you mentioned. Each of these are quoted from the previous talk message:

“just because a parameter exists doesn't mean it has to be used”

Based the MOS:CITE policy – in addition to the WP:BURDEN policy you cited – it’s clear that editors should err on the side of quoting our sources, whenever possible.

“I really think ‘the magazine GQ’ sounds clunky and ‘GQ magazine’ is better, but I'm not going to edit-war over it”

Let’s change it back. I meant it: this is about consensus! 

“I also don't really see why all the refs needed archive links when they are live links”

Due to the ephemeral nature of the internet, archiving links before they die is prudent and the “prevention of link rot strengthens the encyclopedia”^[24] (emphasis in the original).

“but as the archive seems to do no harm, I guess thy [sic] could stay”

It’s definitely not a matter of harming an article by providing citations that are more complete: Wikipedia policy is that when an editor is in doubt, they should overdo it, not “underdo” it. 

“I have no clue why you think I have a COI on the article - I don't, all material is linked to assorted news articles and other sources.”

At Wikipedia, we like to keep the atmosphere professional and the tone friendly. We also like to avoid even the possibility that someone should have a conflict of interest, because that “undermines the public’s confidence in Wikipedia”.^[25]

“the equinoxes are June 15 to September 15, and "warmer months" instead of summer is less precise and doesn't reflect the source”

No. “Equinoxes occur twice a year, around 21 March and 23 September”,^[26] and “summer is the period from the summer solstice (usually 20 or 21 June in the Northern Hemisphere) to the autumn equinox”.^[27] Using “warmer months” is preferable according to the MOS:SEASON guideline, because in January, for instance, it’s summer on half the planet’s surface.

For all these reasons, I think we cannot, in good faith, choose any other action besides restore the quotations that you’ve deleted. To that end, in good faith, and in an abundance of caution, here’s what’s changed and why (besides the “quote” parameters, which are explained above):

• At multiple points in the article, I have moved periods and commas outside the quotation marks in accordance with the MOS:LQ guideline, which directs editors to “use the ‘logical quotation’ style in all articles”^[28]
• “jazzy” needs a citation
• “fun factor” now cites the CNN article that used that phrase
• “GQ magazine” replaces “the magazine GQ” thanks to your input
• Replacing “listed the lounge in its list of the top 10 bars in the world, ranking it as the ‘#1 bar...worth flying for’ ” with “listed the lounge as the top bar in the world worth flying for” which conforms to the MOS:NUMBERSIGN guideline, which prescribes that editors “Avoid using the # symbol ... when referring to numbers or rankings”.^[29] This phrase also requires a citation, which was in the Melcher book on page 37 (or {{rp|37}})
• I removed the passage that “The concept of a tropical theme was also viewed as a fun concept for Montana” because the source doesn’t support it
• The citation for Melcher’s Montana Watering Holes: The Big Sky’s Best Bars is expanded because I used it to support the Hawaii connection (and it helped me phrase “top bar” instead of “#1”)
• I removed author “Shortgrass Web Development, LLC” because there’s no evidence that organization can be considered that website’s author

Let’s all work together, proudly and professionally, on one of humankind’s greatest endeavors!

LLarson (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Section break

OK, let me explain this to you in simple terms. I've ben here over nine years, have over 80,000 edits to wikipedia on well over 11,000 unique pages, and your condescension about "how to edit wikipedia" is really starting to be annoying. For all you appear to have a very old account, you've actually done very little editing, so let me explain a few things to you. See the little green circle with the plus at the top right hand corner of the main article? That means that it has been given Good Article status. That means other people have already given this article an extensive review, particularly for style and citation format, and while there is always room for improvement, your proposals for the long quotations in the citations not it. I've worked on over 50 GAs as an editor and quite a few more as a reviewer. You clearly don't understand that criteria. Your addition of the archiveurls was, as I acknowledge linkrot can be an issue, and that has been kept. But for the rest, per WP:LEAD, you don't put citations in the lead if the material is cited elsewhere in the article. So I removed those. If something is in the lead that is NOT mentioned in the body text, then yes, a tag or comment is appropriate, but I believe all material in the lead is cited in the article. I have never, in any set of articles I've ever worked on (you can view my userpage for my article stats if you really care) ever needed to have quotations from every source cited. I don't give a flying rat's rear end if it's "GQ magazine" or "the magazin GQ" so do with that as you please (but do make up your mind, as you've gone both ways on that one now.). Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)