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

Nominator: Another Believer (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Everybody loves ice cream! But nobody loves inflation... TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is clear and concise. No typos spotted. Technical terms have been clarified. Overall reading experience: superb.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct. Article is not infested with words found on the WTW list. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There is a reference section. No bare URLs spotted.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Highly doubtful of some of the sources used here. I'm very unfamiliar with them, so I'll have to fail this criterion for now. Most sources used in the article are reliable.
2c. it contains no original research. Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Per Earwig, the top result is at a 33.3% similarity.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The restaurant's description, menu, history, and reception have significant coverage and are therefore adequately addressed. No information is left out.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article stays focused.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article is neutral.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Considering that the article was just created a week ago, there have been no edit wars and development is at a steady pace.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Logo is tagged with non-free use rationale. The rest of the images are self-taken and are correctly tagged.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. I wouldn't say the cookie image is relevant. Everything else is fine.
7. Overall assessment. I might go here someday...

Sources[edit]

Few things before we begin[edit]

Lead[edit]

Description[edit]

History[edit]

Reception[edit]

Spotchecking[edit]

References are of this revision. Eight sources. Go!

👍 Like Thanks for reviewing! I think I have addressed your concerns, but please let me know if any remain. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 28 April 2024 (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.