Talk:Shut Up and Eat/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ca (talk · contribs) 14:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article as part of the 2023 August backlog drive. Keep in mind this is my first GA review so please do raise concerns if you have any. Thanks!

Thanks! Happy to address any concerns you might have. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1) Well-written[edit]

This article is generally well written and follows all five required MOS guidelines for a Good article. However, I found some vague passages that may be misinterpreted.

  • In 2014, Michael Russell of The Oregonian gave the restaurant a one star rating. One star reviews are generally understood to signify a bad experience; however the methodology section of The Oregonian counterintuitively defines one-star reviews as "satisfactory" Instead of using the star system, I recommend simply using the word "satisfactory" to avoid confusion.

Nitpicks[edit]

The following are very minor issues that I identified so take them as a gentle suggestion.

Description
  • Missing word: Ned Lannamann described the interior (as) containing indoor and outdoor seating, additionally noting the large kitchen.
  • Probably worth differentiating the proprietary menus from regular ones by placing them in quotation marks like this: "The Butternut" and "Squash Broad Street Bomber"
  • Shouldn't The seating capacity could hold up to approximately 30 people.

be "The seating capacity could have held up to approximately 30 people."?

    • I've changed to "Shut Up and Eat had a seating capacity of approximately 30 people". ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reception

Overall, great prose! This article passes the first criterion.

Spotchecks[edit]

  • #8 Williamette Week Source seems reliable as it is from a major publication and have an editorial team. Source-text integrity is good. ✓ Pass
  • #13 Williamette Week No issues ✓ Pass
  • #10 Portland Mercury Definitely not the best source ever but menus are very simple matters. ✓ Pass
  • The four sources in the passage The casual counter-service restaurant's menu included breakfast, meatball, and submarine sandwiches, as well as cheesesteaks, such as the "Broad Street Bomber".[10][6][11][12] correctly supports the paragraph. RSN Search shows a consensus that Eater is a reliable source. ✓ Pass
  • #24 Eater No issues. ✓ Pass
  • The three sources in the passage In January 2014, Eater Portland's Erin DeJesus said Shut Up and Eat was planning to "open a next-door deli" with Fimmano's side dishes available by the pound. The deli opened on January 31.[24][25][26] correctly supports the paragraph.
  • In footnote 26, there is a typo: The move was deigned to increase the restaurant's prep space I believe designed is the intended word here.

Spotchecks have found no close paraphrasing or source misrepresentation. Earwig only returned false positives. No original research found. Easily passes the second criterion. Good job!

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3) Broadness[edit]

No significant facets of this restaurant have been left out. There are small rooms for expansion, but nothing major. Reception section is solid. The article does not go off-track. ✓ Pass

Criterion 4) NPOV[edit]

Nearly all reviews are very positive, which the article reflects. There is no sentences that come off as unduely promotional. All significant facets of this restaurant is given due weight. Lead is neutral in tone. ✓ Pass

Criterion 5 & 6) Stability and Illustration[edit]

Article is stable, with no ongoing edit warring or RfCs. The NFCC rationale is valid and images are relevant. The caption explains that the pictured restaurant is not actually Shut Up and Eat, so that it isn't misleading. ✓ Pass and ✓ Pass

Verdict[edit]

This article passes the GA criteria. I had fun reviewing this. Amazing work!

@Ca: Thanks for reviewing! If you're interested and enjoyed collaborating, I've nominated several other restaurant entries for GA status. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:15, 3 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shut_Up_and_Eat/GA1&oldid=1168563937"