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

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 08:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments[edit]

• It is possible that there is copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported 70% in similarity. Will analyse this in depth later in the review. False positive. Earwig again picked up quotes which are properly used in the article.
  • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
  • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
  • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No previous GA reviews. Went through AfD recently.
  • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No problems were found in the lede.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about moving Ristorante Machiavelli's menu has changed little in three decades. to the Menu section?
    • Not entirely opposed, but I see this more as an operational decision which adds historical context. I'll relocate the text if you feel strongly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I could see that too... Okay, let's keep it there actually. Vacant0 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What about moving In 2022, the Booker Building was sold to the private San Francisco-based company Prado Group. to the Description section?
    • To me, this is a statement about the ownership of the building, not the restaurant specifically. While I think this is relevant context for the History section, I don't think most people would describe the restaurant based on the owners of the building in which it is housed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Good job on those alt texts!
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW guidelines. There is no fiction and embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a ((reflist)) template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed references are reliable, they are mostly news websites.
    • Ref 21 is region blocked so I'll AGF on it.
    • Ref 25 cannot be loaded for some reason. It's archived, ignore this.
      • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 24, 26, 29, 33, 36, 41–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking potential copyright violations.
    • False positive. The quotes in the article were picked up and that is why the percentage is so high.
      • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • Do we know why Ristorante Machiavelli experienced a staffing shortage in 2021, is this due to COVID?
    • I think we could assume, especially given some of the commentary in the source about the pandemic, but since COVID-19 is not specifically mentioned w/r/t Ristorante Machiavelli, I think we should avoid the assumption. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the occupations of those listed in the Restaurant guides and review websites section?
    • I've noted which outlets they write for, but I do not think we should assign them any specific occupation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article stays focused on the topic. The article has been vastly improved since the AfD nomination.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Checking images.
  • All looks good, images are yours and they are properly licensed.
    • ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

Luckily enough, @Another Believer:, there is not much to fix. I'll leave the article on hold for a week and promote it once the issues get addressed. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Please let me know if any concerns remain. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all your comments above; if there is no information on why it experienced a staffing shortage in 2021 it should be kept as it is in the article. Promoting this to GA then.

P.S. this kind of a GAN is interesting to read. Vacant0 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've also nominated Bipartisan Cafe, if you're interested in a similar entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]