Talk:Gateways club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Gateways club was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

[edit] Re Closing date

Although some references give the closure as being on the Tuesday this is in error. The final 'public' night was the Saturday and that would have been that if Kenric hadn't booked the venue some months before for a social event on the Monday night. That event was effectively the 'final night' as some members (who had been going for many years and knew the owner) even took away fittings and undid/removed the namepate of the big green door. (and yes, I was there that night ...) --Vamp:Willow 12:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect and Kenric

A have added a redirect for 'The Gateways', which as well as 'The Gates' was what me and most of the women I know used to refer to the club. I have also developed the Kenric Article a little, which this page refers to. I have added some content about Gina, Smithy and Ted.

Fluffball70 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


This thing's been waiting for a bloody month to be assessed? What the hell is going on with the GA crowd? Dev920 (Have a nice day!)

That's because some unkind person deleted the reference on the GA Candidates page! I know it was there a couple of weeks ago. Ho-hum! Such is the life of an LGBT article.... Fluffball70 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fluffball70, it looks like you were the one to remove it: see this diff. Mike Christie (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA-Fail

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

There are two major problems with this article, prose and focus. The article contains a few spelling errors and comma errors, I suggest you get someone to edit it before the next nomination. especially in the early history section the facts given have little continuity and flow. What do the respective ages of a couple getting married have to do with gateways? She "had been born" you use commas where there should be periods etc... As regarding the focus, try to approach the overall impact of the club in the lead and throughout the article. The POV is slightly slanted in the positive, try to present all significant views if there are others. but this is not a huge issue. The lead also goes into facts about the last day when it should be giving a concise summary of the club, its impact, and history. I think a project peer review is in order before submitting this article for GA again. Not too many refs but considering the article length, the number is acceptable. Consider adding some substantive length if you can. However if there is nothing more to add just revise the way you present what you currently have. Good try though and keep up the good work. Cronholm144 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)