# Talk:Smuggler's Cove (bar)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Smuggler's Cove (bar)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: BanjoZebra (talk · contribs) 22:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Madeleinesinging (talk · contribs) 07:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Not the reviewer, but will still add this.

Is it reasonably well written?
Prose quality:  most addressed.
"by owner Martin Cate"; is the "owner" necessary?
"according to"; not necessarily but sounds like WP:WEASEL. If there are more statistics to support it, I think it will be better (I know the lead has some impressive stats).
"co-owned by Martin Cate and his wife Rebecca"; Cate and his wife have already been stated before, suggest rephrasing to "co-owned by Cate and his wife" or "co-owned by Martin and Rebecca cate", or something along these lines. Also, it is a single sentence on a paragraph, so potentially merge with another paragraph.
"is nondescript"; what does "nondescript" mean? Link or explain.
"describing:"; change to "describing that".
"Cate emphasizes the authenticity..."; Hmm, looks like Martin Cate has a WP:COI. Potentially rephrase or just delete. Consider rephrasing all the other quotes too if possible.
"has three main levels..."; maybe merge 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
Overall very nice!
MOS compliance:  most addressed.
"owner of Alameda tiki bar"; potentially add a "the".
"with Cate already seen as"; I don't think "already" is necessary.
"Ignacio "Notch" Gonzalez"; Who is he? Nicknames shouldn't be included.
"rums of any bar"; maybe change "of" to "than".
"from Cuba and Brazil"; no need link. They're countries.
"merit badge"; no need link.
""exotic cocktail,""; change to ""exotic cocktail",".
Overall: minor mistakes, overall fine.
Is it factually accurate and verifable?
References to sources: 
[1] is a review. Potentially include a better source; otherwise fine.
Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
Major aspects: 
Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:   looks good.
Too many positive quotes within the article. Consider requoting them or simply deleting them. Per WP:PEACOCK.
I'll fix some parts myself.
Is it stable?
No edit wars. One user editing it. 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
The image of the exterior is not the best. Potentially retake.
Overall:
Wish you luck for GA, HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 03:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; great points within! Could you specify what you mean by "Consider requoting the statement by the news or simply deleting it"? Not sure what statement by the news you're referring to (unless you're just referring to all of the quotes throughout the article). BanjoZebra (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
 Done; readressed. HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 23:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
@HwyNerd Mike Passing by, why are you saying that this review is unreliable just because it's a review? Many newspapers and magazines publish reviews of things, and they are frequently used as reliable sources. It's the most obvious reliable source for a bar I can think of. Time Out (magazine) has its own Wikipedia page, an international presence, and a published editorial policy, among other things. Reliable sources are allowed to have opinions and biases as long as they are reliable; the only caveat is that if a reviewer says a bar is good, it should be phrased as "this reviewer said the bar was good" rather than "the bar is good" being written in wikivoice. Looking at the article, the review is being used appropriately as a source.
Also would like to remind you, GA just requires the content is understandable, not that it's written professionally: see What GA is not point 1. Awkwardness like "co-owned by Martin Cate and his wife Rebecca" is fine for GA, so you should clarify that that suggestion, while probably good, is optional. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions! I know that GAs don't have such a strict guideline, and I understand that mine are only suggestions. I'm only deeming it uncomplying because there are quite a lot. I'll check if the nom has fixed the problems; if he has fixed most to them, then I'll change accordingly. To add on, I find the nom pretty inactive, so I'm listing them down. HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 01:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Still, it's important to explicitly mark optional suggestions as optional. The way you've written it implies that fixes for them are required, which they aren't. Also, quantity of awkwardness doesn't make it fail the GA criteria as far as I can tell, just if it's not understandable. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
 Done hopefully; if there are any other things that need to be addressed, reply or post on my tokk. Thank you! HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 22:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Went ahead and made most of the copyediting changes you suggested and tweaked things throughout to reduce the number of quotes used by a bit! Let me know what you think. BanjoZebra (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Brilliant! Like how you added and addressed pretty much all of the issues. Some small problems are fine; I'll fix them myself. I'll then look at how well it's sourced and the source ratio. HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 23:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey! Recently kinda inactive, so I'll let @Madeleinesinging make the final decision of whether or not to pass it. If they're inactive too, then I'll find some time. Thx! HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 04:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Madeleinesinging seems to be inactive as well. I'll pass it myself. This article has been held up in the review process for almost two months. OmegaAOL (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Seems good to pass. Madeleinesinging is clearly inactive, last edit a few days ago, GA on hold for too long, therefore I think it's good to go! HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 05:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi all –  I should have been more responsible on this GA nomination, and I appreciate your nudges. I'm sorry for dropping the ball on this, and I'm happy that you were able to get it through. Thank you. Madeleinesinging (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah, it's fine... The most important part is the pass or fail. :) HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 19:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
It's fine! - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 01:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Smuggler's Cove (bar)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: OmegaAOL (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

User:OmegaAOL is passing this review, started by User:Madeleinesinging and created/finished by User:HwyNerd_Mike.

Further details and review comments are in the GA1/GA Criteria section. I am glad to have passed this article, the subject matter is interesting and it is well-written.

... that with over 1,300 varieties, Smuggler's Cove (pictured) offers the widest selection of rum of any bar in the United States?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Calculus (Apostol books)

BanjoZebra (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC).

Overall:  Compliant, new enough (promoted to GA 2 days ago), QPQ satisfied, Earwig 35.9% similarity that's likely because of properly attributed quote. Well-sourced and proper inline citation in "Rum Collection" section. Hook is really interesting as I wouldn't expect some random bar to have 1,300 collections. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 17:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a DYK that you have reviewed (per QPQ), thank you! HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 16:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
 Done; addressed and passed. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 19:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)