Clifton's Cafeteria was a Agriculture, food and drink good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 24, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Clifton's Cafeteria was once known as Clifton's Golden Rule because patrons were obliged to pay only what they felt was fair?

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink: Foodservice Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related taskforces:
/
	This article is supported by the Foodservice task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Why did the Clifton's give their restaurant to Clinton's children?=[edit]

Citation templates[edit]

I don't think there's any support for the idea that an article should be credited to a "work" other than the main newspaper in which it's published. If you review the examples in WP:Citation templates and Template:Cite news you will not find any examples of an archive service being put before the newspaper's article that is archived (with the newspaper mentioned parenthetically). Nor will you find any newspaper articles credited to the website with the newspaper mentioned parenthetically. It is fine to use the publisher parameter for the newspaper (though I just now learned that there is a "newspaper" parameter in the {{citation}} template, but not in {{cite news}}, which may be usable.

Where the primary publisher is a newspaper, logic dictates that the newspaper should be figured most prominently in the reference. Bongo matic 01:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the correction. It is appreciated. I found it online and showed the "work" as there. Thanks much for continuing to help out. I see several DYKs in the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article you have created. Hats off. I wish there were a free source of the LA Magazine article—did you review the free portion? Even that is a pretty good supplemental reference. Bongo matic 03:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, there are pay-per-view archives going back to 1932. Time to visit the microfische at my local library. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more pointers on use of citation templates:

"pages" is for a page range for the reference, not the number of pages in the book
"edition" is for books with more than one edition (so "illustrated" probably is not intended unless there is a non-illustrated edition)
"year" is preferred if the full date of publication is not available
"accessdate" should be in the same format as other dates on the page (MOS, not cite template specific)
"first", "last", "first2", "last2", etc. are preferred to "coauthors"
"url" at Google books is not a good choice for works without any contents there; linking the ISBN is sufficient; also, I find it worthwhile to scrub the URLs post-search to shorten them, avoid the referrer tags that are not applicable, and generally try to make them easier to read (I also found that by switching the segment of one url from "xml" to "html", the web page became legible all of a sudden)
"location" is the location of the publisher, not the page reference
"publisher" should not include designation such as "Co" or "Inc"

Bongo matic 16:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks[edit]

I've removed quotation marks other than where surrounding text says something like "named 'The Cafeteria of the Golden Rule'". I didn't find support in MoS that business names should be italicized or put in quotation marks. Happy to be reversed on this, but it should be principled. Bongo matic 03:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case should the be italicized? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, I don't see any support for that, either. Looks fine to me as it is now. Bongo matic 23:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Hotel[edit]

Currently, the article links to the disambiguation page for Southern Hotel. Is it possible that the actual hotel is the Southern Hotel (Perris, California)? I didn't see any mention of the hotel in the citations. Bongo matic 03:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Hotel was an old timey one in downtown LA during the heyday of it's 1800's growth. It's the one David Harrison Clinton purchased for a whopping $2000 in 1888 on 5th Street[1]. I have naturally, more historical cites to be added. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language / style[edit]

This article contains a wealth of encyclopedic facts. Recent edits are also adding more flowery language ("eerily bright vegetables") that may be out of place in an encyclopedia and a level of detail (such as the enumeration of side dishes included with fried chicken) that probably is not warranted. Bongo matic 05:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally cleanup will be a part of its preparation before being set loose, so I am not too worried about current hyperbole, as it will be fixed. All help welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to edit, but didn't want to change the style until it had been discussed. Bongo matic 05:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured that with so much more to go, the worst might be tweaked now, and the lesser ofenders might be looked at before it goes main. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mainspace[edit]

When this article is placed in mainspace, it may be preferable to do it via a move rather than a new article creation in order to preserve the edit history. I usually don't recommend this because it doesn't ever show up as a new article, but when there has been so much information added and subtracted, it's useful to have history available. Bongo matic 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer. May go live in some 24 hours. Thanks for keeping a hand in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph[edit]

This sentence:

"The branches included exotic decor and facades that were "kitschy and theatrical"."

I don't understand. "Braches"? "included" (past tense)? This is confusing. I can sort of piece it together by reading the rest of the lead section but it's jarring and confusing coming that early in the lead paragraph without any prior explanation that it is more than one location, and those locations are no longer in business. Green Cardamom (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clifton's Cafeteria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Not done Article does not confirm to the manual of style.[reply]

Also - why did Mr Clifton leave his business to the Clinton's children?

2605:E000:1417:47BC:4DB9:663F:126E:C1FB (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance in Films[edit]

I removed the reference to D.O.A. (1950) because I couldn't find the restaurant anywhere in the film on You Tube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fMDJ6pwSfo). I verified that the 83 minutes on You Tube represent the entire film (see D.O.A._(1950_film).Adallas (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Clifton's Cafeteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]