Talk:The Cock/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: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Hi, Lee Vilenski, and thank you for this review! Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

• Rest of the article looks ok, but the lede needs some work. Any info we can also add from the body here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've added a couple things. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• There's a citation in the lede, can we move to the body? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  The citation is there because it's a quotation; I believe (though correct me if I'm wrong) that quotations always require a citation. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Described as "a rarified taste of old New York and the cruisy gay scene that existed [there] in the '80s and '90s" - by whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Attribution added. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Described as "a rarified taste of old New York and the cruisy gay scene that existed [there] in the '80s and '90s",[1] the venue experienced frequent police raids in the late 1990s and early 2000s under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. - these are two sentences, surely? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed—they were, originally. Another editor changed that, but I've now separated them again. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Could we add why Giuliani would want to raid the club? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've made a small edit to this end. I wasn't sure how to best handle this while adhering to NPOV. The two sources that mention raids say things like, "[T]his was the anti-nightlife Giuliani era. Before long, cops and inspectors were swarming the Cock as often as twice a week, ticketing for anything they could find." [1] It appears to boil down to Giuliani simply taking an anti-nightlife position and doesn't sound like the raids were caused by anything in particular, though I can't find many details. I thought it was perhaps more objective to simply elaborate in the History section by saying that the Cock only received one formal citation, for indoor smoking, and that it was dismissed. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

General

• Since then, it has relocated twice—most recently in 2015, when it moved to its present Second Avenue location. - there's only two, can we mention the first time?! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, done. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• The bar was raided often during Rudy Giuliani's tenure as mayor of New York City, sometimes as frequently as twice per week - why? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Expanded a bit; see above. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• It was temporarily shuttered in 2000 for being a public nuisance. - is this what happened, or the mayor using the power? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  The latter. Would that be clearer if I put "public nuisance" in quotation marks? I had wikilinked the term to show that what was meant was the legal definition, not a description. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• drag shows, 'art performances', and meat pies - I'm assuming this isn't steak and kidney... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Believe it or not, that wasn't an innuendo :-D The source in the article [2] says the bar wanted to sell meat pies from a place called Tuck Shop, which was apparently a nearby restaurant specializing in meat pies. I've wikilinked meat pie for clarity. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reception needs more of an overview, it's more just what some magazines said, we could do with a better commentary Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Added an overview. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Really not my area, but hopefully some of the comments above are of use to you. I've placed on hold Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  I appreciate the review and your helpful comments! I have made changes accordingly. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• No worries. I have promoted. There could probably still do with a bit more, but it is suitably broad to meet the criteria. Well done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:09, 31 October 2020 (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.