Talk:The Boys in the Bar

Could be true or not; an original research? I have remove the below passage that may violate

WP:reliable source.

The episode title is a play on words on the 1968 play (and subsequent movie) The Boys in the Band.

Trivial or not, that would have been an intriguing fact. Nevertheless, without reliable source, the above passage must be considered original research. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Why else do you think it was named thusly? The irony is that I myself like to patrol for and remove original research (I just removed something from an article yesterday for that very reason), but this one just seems so obvious. Nonetheless, I'll keep it out. Googling "The Boys in the Band" with "The Boys in the Bar" provides several hits with verification, but I'm not going to get into an edit war whether they are reputable sources or not. You won't exactly find the golden proof in a major magazine source, in part because it's just one episode of a sitcom, and also, I think, because it's so obvious that the play/movie title was the inspiration for the episode's title that it wasn't commented on. Moncrief (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:The Boys in the Bar/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bladeboy1889 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few prose elements in the plot section that I think need addressing:

• Teammate -> team mate or team-mate
  •  Done --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It jumps between using 'homosexual' and 'gay', which in itself isn't a problem, but it seems to do it in the wrong context at times. The baseball player should come out as gay rather than homosexual in the first para, also the 'three escorted men' in the last in sentence should be referred to as gay (or not gay as the case turns out) rather than as homosexual.
  •  Done Well, three men are not gay, thanks to Diane. Changed to 'gay'. --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The first sentence of para 2 is a bit short, it could be merged with the second ie; 'the next day, prompting Norm...' etc, this should help the flow and also underline that one action is the result of the other.
  •  Done --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Similarly I'd merge the last two sentences in that para as well to juxtapose them - eg 'similar point of view but Diane openly criticizes'
  • Last two sentences of second paragraph are too long to merge. 'Openly' is too redundant, so I removed it because Diane openly speaks her criticism and facts and stuff.
• The last sentence of para 2 in it's current form feels clunky. Having not seen the episode does she talk about all men's attitudes to homosexuals or just the men in the bar? I think it needs to be made clear somehow. 'Defends gays' sounds a bit odd - depending on what she says could it be made clearer / expanded? Or maybe lose it altogether (which would cut out the repetition of the word gay)? I'd also add 'actually' into the final stanza eg 'reveals that actually there are two gay men...' which implies it's to make her point rather than just outing them for the sake of it.
  •  Loosened into a longer explanation;  added 'Actually' with punctuations. --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regular patrons - this might be a US/UK semantics issue, but it sounds a bit formal and verbose. I'd generally use the term 'regulars' (which is the common term in the UK) but happy to take discussion.
  • "Regular patrons (i.e. regulars)" and then I use "regulars". What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Sam, Carla and the men argue' - which men? Switch to 'the regulars' (if it is them).
  •  Done I did change to "employees and regulars, pulled in by Diane". Also, I have explained people's positions: "a bartender Sam", "a waitress Diane", and "another waitress Carla". I did not put in "bartender Coach" because he was (almost?) useless in this episode. --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'those two men in the billiard room' - which two men? It mentions three men coming in and then later mentions three men being escorted out so who are the two men? If it's not the three who came in and is just background characters then remove 'those' so it's not the definite article eg 'argue about two men'.
  • Diane said "two"; the episode reveals three. It's just intentionally contradictory. Oh, I  changed it into "the three newcomers". --George Ho (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Norm and the other men escort' -> change 'other men' to regulars.
  •  "other regulars" --George Ho (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'escort those three men' - we've got a lot of unidentified men now, replace with 'the three newcomers'?
• The final sentence doesn't make sense. Change to "...are still present. The two men in question then kiss Norm on his cheeks as the episode ends."
  •  Done --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only other points:

• "better than Vera" - means nothing to me so I'm guessing it wouldn't to a lot of people. Can we expand? Eg add "(referring to X)" or something? And make it clear who says it?
  •  Added that Norm's wife is Vera. --George Ho (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The image needs an alt tag
  •  Done --George Ho (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The image caption is a bit odd - change 'giving Norm cheek kissing' to 'kissing Norm on the cheeks'. Also the reshoot info is irrelevant to the image so I'd drop that and tag the last sentence onto the first eg 'at the end of the episode, the ending of which has subsequently gained critical attention.' (Could it be 'acclaim' rather than 'attention'?)
  • Acclaim is joy and stuff related. Attention is a lot of talk, joy or disdain. Anyway,  changed the caption

With those tweaks I think it's a very good and informative article about an episode I was unaware of. Will put it on hold whilst any changes are made. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of more tweaks to the text and fixed one typo. Everything else looks fine - will go through the 'pass' process now.

Cheers (intentional pun) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to nominate article as FA

I am planning make the article the Featured Article. I read

WP:FACR, which makes effort kinda strenuous, doesn't it? I tried peer review request, but no one has reviewed the article so far. Any suggestions before going ahead? --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]