Talk:Comet Ping Pong/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take me a day or two to complete the review. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"Alefantis quickly became the sole owner" - I think you should specify 2009 here. Not everyone would agree that three years is quick.

Why does the last sentence have three citations? The claim is already sourced in the body. I'm guessing this is left over from when the article needed protection. Since the problem seems to have vanished, I think these could be removed from the lead, but it's up to you.

History
The second and third sentences don't flow together. I suggest something like "The location was previously occupied by another restaurant, Thai Room. When it announced it was closing, Alefantis decided..."

"The restaurant overcame these initial issues" - did they lower prices and increase selection, or did they find a customer base that wasn't bothered by these issues?

I think Carman's comment on the locations' success should be dated. That will give readers an idea of how much time influenced his opinion.

"without Greenwood after her departure" - after her departure is redundant

"Alefantis agreed with..." - please note the agreement was voluntary (per the source)

"would not stay open past midnight and would not have live entertainment" - suggest "would not stay open past midnight or have live entertainment"

It seems strange to identify Frank Winstead in the second sentence featuring him instead of the first. Also, the source identifies him as the commissioner, not just a member.

the "rapes and murders" quote should be attributed to Winstead

The BBC reference specifies 4chan as the original source of the pizzagate rumor and Reddit and a significant contributor. I think this should be mentioned in the article instead of the vague "several websites and forums"

The "local resident" on Facebook should be identified as PR consultant Erick Sanchez, per ref 24. I think his profession is worth noting.

Services and reputation
This section looks fine, but the first paragraph is heavy on the "[person/entity] [verb]ed ____." format. You can find some helpful tips on variation at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. This is just FYI though - no changes are required to pass the GA nomination.

The Diner, Drive-Ins, and Dives episode aired June 2010. Seems relevant since it's after Greenwood left.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Several of the references don't link their sources, such as Snopes in #1 and Wilmington Star-News in #20. They should either be linked in their first appearance (DCist is linked in 34 but not 19), or every time.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
earwig's strongest result was due to a list of charges against the shooter. Lesser matches due to common phrases and attributed quotes. No concern.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Nothing has been obviously omitted.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Considering the pizzagate article is over 3x the size of this one, you did a fantastic job summarizing that subsection.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Article has been under semi-protection since Feb 2017. That appears to have fixed any vandalism/edit warring issues.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The infobox image could use some alt text describing the storefront. The alt text for the band matches the caption. Since the caption is sufficient, no alt text is needed here.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass pending some minor changes noted above. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, I've added the alt text and combed through the references again and added wikilinks. Know you're not finished with the review but wanted to drop some items off your plate quickly. Also, thanks for reviewing! Nomader (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries - the notes are all in now. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Argento Surfer: Thanks for the comments, I believe that I've addressed all of them. Just a note, I switched out the BBC News ref with another one that talked about other websites (keeping the wording accurate-- I think it's best to keep things as summarized as possible in that section). Also, I wish I could claim credit for how well written the Pizzagate section is, but that was a collaboration of a ton of editors-- I wrote the article from pre-Pizzagate and fleshed it out afterwards for all the other sections. I'll be pinging everyone who worked on the pizzagate section with barnstars for their work once this is passed because it's well deserved. Nomader (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everything looks good to me. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.