Talk:Last Chance Saloon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last Chance Saloon was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: June 25, 2007}

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Etymology, an attempt at improving etymologies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Expansion request

This page seemed to think that the Last Chance Saloon exists only in SF shows! I've tracked down a little historical background, but not filled in any of the details. Should be a simple enough job for somebody to follow the links I've added, do a bit of googing, and fill in the gaps Danohuiginn 16:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've expanded the article quite a bit, but I'm not sure if we're at the point that we can remove the tag calling for expansion. I mean, really, every article can always have a bit more added to it. Since this article is all about borderlines, where do you think the "border" is between needing expansion and hoping that someone will find some new and interesting tidbit? I suppose that sort of question is why the tag itself is under so much fire on its own talk page. It is kinda redundant. Despite being uncertain, I'm going to go ahead and take down the expansion tag, since this disused corner of Wikipedia will probably see little attention for months, if not years. CzechOut 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

looks good to me - when I added the tag there was almost nothing here. good work! Danohuiginn 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No images?

Saw this up on GAC, and I'd like to comment that for an article that has among its subjects an existing building that could be photographed and a non-existing building that could have a fair use image, the lack of images here is rather surprising. --tjstrf talk 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good point. I wasn't sure if a fair-use image was available of either, which is why I linked to images of both. Government images are typically excluded from copyright protection under US law, according to my feeble understanding of things. If you take a picture of a government marker, is that photograph similarly excluded? I am myself remote to either of the two sites mentioned in the article and would therefore have to rely on others' pictures . . . CzechOut 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I almost reviewed this - but now I've done so many edits that I probably shouldn't. That being said, I don't see this passing - two spaces (and sometimes, oddly enough, 4 spaces) were put after periods (I fixed most of that), periods were outside references (same) and there are red links. I think this one will probably need more work - but we'll see what the next reviewer thinks--daniel folsom 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of those are actually grounds for failure. Sure, French spacing is a waste of time and kb, and I remove it whenever I see it, but failing due to it when it doesn't even show up on the saved page? That strikes me as pedantic. Same with red links, which may actually be useful if the article linked to is written.

As regards your image question, Czech, I'll answer to the best of my knowledge:

United States federal government photos are public domain (tag them {{pd-usgov}}) but works of individual subdivisions of the government, like states, may not be. A photo of a government sign would be free if you took it yourself and released your rights to it, but might not be if it was taken by another (non-government) individual, since if the image has substantial content other than just the sign the photographer then has copyright on their artistic contributions like setting and lighting and angle. If the image was completely of the sign (no background) then it would be in the clear. (I believe this would include a cropped version of a photo that had previously had other content, though you might not want to quote me on that bit.) --tjstrf talk 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Sounds like the safest thing on the photos is to ask someone close to Kansas or Oakland to do a little pro bono work.

I thank the editor who made typographical changes, but I'm rather agog at the spacing comments. I have to be honest and say that before today, I've never heard of any controversy surrounding the number of spaces following a period. It was always two as far as I was ever taught, and it's rather hard for me to stop doing. It's just automatic to me. I read the linked article, though, and it seems rather ambiguous as to which is "right". Has Wikipedia come to any sort of formal policy stance on the issue? CzechOut 10:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't normally make decisions on grammar issues like that, for the same reason we don't have a policy on American English vs. British English. It makes no difference whatsoever to what displays on the page anyway though, since double spaces are displayed as single spaces on the saved article. Take a look, there's no display difference between your comment and mine despite yours having extra spaces after the periods. --tjstrf talk 10:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I had made a big deal of it was consistency. In some places it was used and in some places it wasn't - and thus before I went throught it it was a violation of the MOS - which says consistency should be used. I mean I came across sentences that absolutely ranged from 1-5 spaces after a period. --daniel folsom 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Odd. I never knew it automatically truncated the number of spaces following a period, and perhaps because of that fact, I didn't actually notice there were these odd spacing issues in the base text. I tend to edit on the basis of how something looks in the preview, not how it appears in the text box. Again, thanks for catching this cause I never in a million years would've even thought twice about it. Any suggestions on contentual issues? CzechOut 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I'm placing this GA request on hold; I believe it can meet the GA criteria with a little more work. The numbers below are from the criteria at WP:WIAGA.

1a. A brief mention of the "uniquely British automotive meaning" of saloon might be helpful to explain that passage.
1b. The lede could be strengthened to provide a better overview of the article. The layout of the "English metaphor" section might be able to be improved; I don't think it needs to be divided into quite so many subsections. I am aware that "In popular culture" sections are a staple in many articles. However, since this article already discusses slang and metaphorical uses of the term, perhaps some or all of that section could be migrated from an embedded list into prose?
2c. Using the yellowpages.com search utility to support a claim about the commonality of the name is probably novel synthesis. Perhaps an author has already made this claim somewhere else?
3a. The most significant shortcoming of this article, in my mind, is the lack of coverage about the original last chance saloons, other than the two that are named. Some discussion about the economics of these businesses, if available, would be ideal. How did the gradual repeal of dry laws affect them? I am not certain how much material in this vein is available from reliable sources, but the Old West is very well studied and frequently written about, so there should be soemthing to work with out there.
6. Although not a cause of disqualification, an image or two would be ideal. The establishment in Oakland is extant and could be photographed, or a picture could be taken of the marker in Kansas. If a daguerreotype or other period photograph exists, that would be ideal, but I'm not certain if that is the case.

I hope to see this article meet the standards and earn its promotion soon! Serpent's Choice 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite leaving the hold active for several days beyond its technical expiration, no edits were made to address any of the above concerns. Serpent's Choice 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)