Talk:Nostrana (restaurant)/GA1
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Another Believer in topic GA Review
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: Valereee (talk · contribs) 12:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
| 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. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
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). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 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. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Starting review --valereee (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Reception section edit
- Is this in any intentional order, like most important? I'm wondering if this should be placed into chronological order? Or at least roughly chronological. It helps me see how the restaurant has developed over time. In that 'Nostrana team splits up' article from 2008 service issues were mentioned, for instance, but short of adding a subsection called 'criticism' I'm not sure where to put that. --valereee (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- For the Reception section, I grouped by type of sourcing. I started with The Oregonian, the most reputable source, then followed with another magazine, Willamette Week. I figured starting with local papers was best. The second paragraph has a book, Frommer's, and Sunset. The third paragraph is mostly a catch-call, with Eater, Open Table, The Daily Meal, Wine Enthusiast Magazine, and Zagat. The content is in roughly chronological order (not exactly, but close enough and presented in a way to make reading easier). I hope this helps. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Got it...do you have any preference for where criticism would go in this section? Since I found some in one of the articles, I thought it should probably be included since there isn't anything else critical in 'reception' yet, but of course that criticism is over ten years old. It was in The Oregonian, which would put it into the first para by your structure? --valereee (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, I'm not sure what you're planning to add, but feel free to add where you think is best. I admit, I think inserting negative coverage right at the start of the section would be giving some undue weight to a restaurant with a clearly stellar reputation, so I wonder if the bottom of the section would actually be better? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see you've added "In 2008, Douglas Perry writing in The Oregonian said that Nostrana had been plagued by questions over service. The original ownership team had disagreed over whether the restaurant should have casual or professional service." I'd say this is not critical reception of the restaurant itself, but perhaps something worth mentioning briefly in the History section. In my opinion, this statement is more about management style than actual criticism of the restaurant. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- The "Description and history" section already says, "Whims and West purchased the Accuardis' portion of the business in 2008 after differences of opinion over levels of service." I'm not sure the the management style disagreement is worth repeating. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Got it...do you have any preference for where criticism would go in this section? Since I found some in one of the articles, I thought it should probably be included since there isn't anything else critical in 'reception' yet, but of course that criticism is over ten years old. It was in The Oregonian, which would put it into the first para by your structure? --valereee (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I noticed you moved mention of Iron Chef Eats to the Reception section. I don't mind either way, but I had included this in the History section as a notable milestone / media appearance for the restaurant. I'm not sure how the restaurant was portrayed on the show, hence why I assumed this was matter-of-fact and not critical reception. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I moved it mostly because that last paragraph of description/history was a little schizophrenic -- description of interior, buyout of partners, mention of sommelier, iron chef. I could tell it was being used as a catch-all. It's definitely a simple matter-of-fact mention (I'm actually wondering if there was coverage in the local papers of this? I'd prefer that as a source rather than a link to the tv listing/imdb) but I kind of thought the very fact it was included indicates the restaurant's importance, but like you I don't have a strong preference for placing it in reception vs description --valereee (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, I'm struggling to find secondary coverage, but in this case I think the sources are reasonable. Not a contentious claim, but I understand if you disagree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with your moving the content back to the history section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I moved it mostly because that last paragraph of description/history was a little schizophrenic -- description of interior, buyout of partners, mention of sommelier, iron chef. I could tell it was being used as a catch-all. It's definitely a simple matter-of-fact mention (I'm actually wondering if there was coverage in the local papers of this? I'd prefer that as a source rather than a link to the tv listing/imdb) but I kind of thought the very fact it was included indicates the restaurant's importance, but like you I don't have a strong preference for placing it in reception vs description --valereee (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- For the Reception section, I grouped by type of sourcing. I started with The Oregonian, the most reputable source, then followed with another magazine, Willamette Week. I figured starting with local papers was best. The second paragraph has a book, Frommer's, and Sunset. The third paragraph is mostly a catch-call, with Eater, Open Table, The Daily Meal, Wine Enthusiast Magazine, and Zagat. The content is in roughly chronological order (not exactly, but close enough and presented in a way to make reading easier). I hope this helps. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see a comment "use numeral for common format: 6 and 3 of 101" beside the number 6 about using numerals -- per MOS:SPELL09 I was going to change this and the number 3 in the same sentence to spell them out, didn't want to with that comment there but I don't know what it means? --valereee (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about keeping, but my understanding is numbers should be displayed consistently throughout a sentence, so if we display "101" then we should also display "3" and "6" instead of "three" and "six". However, I'm struggling to find this rule at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, so maybe I am misunderstanding. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hm, maybe this: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: five cats and thirty-two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs valereee (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, Yes, thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hm, maybe this: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: five cats and thirty-two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs valereee (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about keeping, but my understanding is numbers should be displayed consistently throughout a sentence, so if we display "101" then we should also display "3" and "6" instead of "three" and "six". However, I'm struggling to find this rule at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, so maybe I am misunderstanding. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another Believer, as I'm going through these sources I'm a little concerned about notability. :( I'm not sure I'm seeing significant coverage in multiple non-local sources? I'm a little embarrassed to question such this with someone as experienced an article creator as you are, so apologies if it's staring me in the face and I'm just missing it. Which sources are you considering the ones that show notability? --valereee (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, Notability should not be a concern. The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. I often have to explain this to editors who are not familiar with publications in the Pacific Northwest. Willamette Week is a Pulitzer-winning newspaper. The restaurant has also been mentioned by many other nationally recognized papers, such as The New York Times, Food and Wine, Wine Enthusiast, and Condé Nast Traveler, as well as books, food industry websites, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another Believer, my understanding is that for restaurants, there needed to be significant coverage other than local and that even significant coverage multiple times in the New York Times of a NYC restaurant was not considered enough -- that significant coverage in the Oregonian would be good for notability for a NYC restaurant, but not for an Oregon restaurant. Again my apologies if I'm being stupid, but I think I'm going to have to ask for another opinion before I go further. For the record, I agree with you that this amount and depth of coverage by a major regional should be sufficient to show notability for restaurants when accompanied by simple mentions/'best of' list inclusions in NYT, F&W, Wine Enthusiast, Conde Nast, guide books, etc. It's a question I've been dealing with myself at Crossroads Kitchen. --valereee (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, Hmm, ok! I definitely see significant secondary coverage here, but by all means please seek a third opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- With Barkeep's opinion that this isn't even something I need to worry about, I'll continue! Sorry for the interruption, I'd never have tagged this article myself for notability if I'd just come across it, but when I'm doing a review I feel like I need to try to address all necessary points for that review. I want to emphasize that I assumed it highly unlikely that you'd create an article about a non-notable subject but that I didn't want to base a review on my assumptions. --valereee (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, No worries! Nothing wrong with third opinions. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- With Barkeep's opinion that this isn't even something I need to worry about, I'll continue! Sorry for the interruption, I'd never have tagged this article myself for notability if I'd just come across it, but when I'm doing a review I feel like I need to try to address all necessary points for that review. I want to emphasize that I assumed it highly unlikely that you'd create an article about a non-notable subject but that I didn't want to base a review on my assumptions. --valereee (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, Hmm, ok! I definitely see significant secondary coverage here, but by all means please seek a third opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another Believer, my understanding is that for restaurants, there needed to be significant coverage other than local and that even significant coverage multiple times in the New York Times of a NYC restaurant was not considered enough -- that significant coverage in the Oregonian would be good for notability for a NYC restaurant, but not for an Oregon restaurant. Again my apologies if I'm being stupid, but I think I'm going to have to ask for another opinion before I go further. For the record, I agree with you that this amount and depth of coverage by a major regional should be sufficient to show notability for restaurants when accompanied by simple mentions/'best of' list inclusions in NYT, F&W, Wine Enthusiast, Conde Nast, guide books, etc. It's a question I've been dealing with myself at Crossroads Kitchen. --valereee (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, Notability should not be a concern. The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. I often have to explain this to editors who are not familiar with publications in the Pacific Northwest. Willamette Week is a Pulitzer-winning newspaper. The restaurant has also been mentioned by many other nationally recognized papers, such as The New York Times, Food and Wine, Wine Enthusiast, and Condé Nast Traveler, as well as books, food industry websites, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- re: neutrality. The reviews I've read have been generally positive, as you said in the lede; are there ones that do provide critical comments that we could include? --valereee (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, If I came across negative coverage, I would have included just the same as the positive reception. I believe the content is representative of sourcing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another Believer, yes, sorry, not questioning the good-faith representation of coverage, just being thorough. I know it's hard with restaurant reviews, sometimes. Welp, that was the fastest GA I've ever done. Going to go reteach myself how to close it now! --valereee (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, Thank you for reviewing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another Believer, yes, sorry, not questioning the good-faith representation of coverage, just being thorough. I know it's hard with restaurant reviews, sometimes. Welp, that was the fastest GA I've ever done. Going to go reteach myself how to close it now! --valereee (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, If I came across negative coverage, I would have included just the same as the positive reception. I believe the content is representative of sourcing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
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.