Talk:Esquina Común/GA1

GA Review

Passed. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 01:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything's good to go. I'll be back... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:56, 24 June 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.	Article reads smoothly. No typos spotted. Grammar is clear and organized.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead summarizes article concisely. No weasel words spotted. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. 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.	Article contains a reference section.
	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).	Forbes article is staff-written. Time Out, The New York Times, and other sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	According to the Earwig report, the top result (as of this GA review) is at a 14.5% similarity. It is unlikely that the article contains any copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The restaurant's description, menu, history, and reception are written about - material that is adequate for a restaurant article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not go off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral (it does not try to promote or criticize the restaurant itself and is not written like an editorial).
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable; no edit wars have occurred.
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.	Both images are freely licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Logo and physical location photos are relevant. Caption of the building photo helps determine where it is located.
	7. Overall assessment.	"Don't mind if I do!"

Quickfail?

Y Spotted no cleanup banners or citation needed tags.
Y Article is stable.
Y Earwig shows no copyvios.
Y First GA review, so no previous mistakes to note.
Y No obvious issues found in article.

Lead

originally founded in the living room of their residence - of their “house”?
“Following a review” -> After being reviewed
“the restaurant increased its popularity” -> the restaurant became popular.
What year did they relocate in? (important to mention in lead)
“upon learning” -> upon discovering
~~They describe Esquina Común as a clandestine terrace - Who is “they”?~~
They describe Esquina Común as a clandestine terrace and the restaurant serves Mexican and Spanish dishes. -> Described as a clandestine terrace, the restaurant serves Mexican and Spanish cuisine.
I heard this restaurant can only be booked on Instagram. Is that why the IG account is considered the official website?

All changed. They don't have an official website, so I used their most immediate official channel

Description

~~food~~ restaurant
Did some copyediting for you

Thanks

History

González had additional training in Peru; she previously worked at Expendio de Maíz, a restaurant in Mexico City. -> González previously worked at Expendio de Maíz, a restaurant in Mexico, and in Peru.
was established in...
Not sure what "rented department" means (also, the lead says they established the restaurant in their own house)

Reworded (both)

Come to think of it, which white building is the restaurant in? The one with the red wall?
before moving the tables on the terrace - Relevant? If it is, reword to "before the terrace was furnished"

Yes, the sources mention that terrace

Contradiction: History paragraph says tables could "serve up to 14 diners", but in the description paragraph, it says the restaurant's seating capacity "has space for 30 people".

That part of the history refers to the Roma apartment. They relocated to Condesa to the pictured location that can serve up to 30 people, as described in the description.

TBD

Thank you for the review. I added a few menu options as well. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History (continued)

After the diners' reservation was confirmed, they were informed of the location. - Huh? I'm not sure how this is part of the history section.

Moved to description

Reception

All is good!

Thanks for the copyedit. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecking

Three sources... go!
#4 Y
#7 Y
#11 Y

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.