Talk:The Parish/GA1

GA Review

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: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 14:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for good article status based on the GA criteria. Icebob99 (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(1a): The prose is good and there are no spelling/grammar issues.

A request: could you rephrase the wording that was found in this copyvio comparison? I imagine it's not purposeful, but I would like for it to be fixed.

Better? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(1b): Per MOS:LEAD, if you are going to bold Palmetto Cafe, you should include it in the first sentence, rather than halfway down the lead.

I think it would be awkward to try incorporating Palmetto Cafe into the opening sentence, so I'd rather just unbold the name. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's your choice; if you do decide to bold, be sure to have it in the first sentence. Icebob99 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(2a): reflist present.

(2b): All the refs look reputable. Everything cited inline.

(2c): no OR found; everything is in the sources. Icebob99 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(3): I think that the article is broad enough. Only a little over 4kB readable prose, but that's not the end-all be-all measure, and I can't think of anything else I would add.

(4): Neutrality is good. The Reception section is well-done; sometimes for restaurants that are local and relatively new, critics will skate over any unpleasant aspects to give it a chance with customers, thus the only negative statement in the section is the only negative thing I could find in general across the reviews.

(5): No major changes, so page is stable.

(6): Regarding the fair use images: I think the rationale for both images is legitimate. The point about the images potentially encroaching upon the marketable opportunity of Yelp is legitimate, but since the images are included in the middle of a collection of 249, the marketable opportunity is sourced from people who look through the images to get a detailed idea of what the restaurant looks like, whereas Wikipedia by no means provides that thorough visual description.

On the second image, File:Palmetto Cafe, Portland, Oregon.jpg, some fields are filled out as n.a. Could there be reasons provided for them, please? You could simply copy and paste the rationales from the other image, since they were taken from the same source and thus are assumed to have the same fair use rationale.

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Other than the fair use rationale and the rephrase I added in (1b), the article is ready for good article status. Once those are fixed I'll pass the article. Icebob99 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and assistance with this review. I am happy to address any other concerns you may have. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

All the issues have been addressed, this article passes as a good article. Congratulations! Icebob99 (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2017 (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.