Hello Another Believer, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Tayi ArajakateTalk01:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not every article is fit to be a GA - this is a polished advertorial (not accusing the content-creator of any malafide intentions; it's the topic) and will always remain one. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about your concerns, or point out specifically problematic text? I've promoted ~50 entries about Portland restaurants to Good article status. The content of this article is similar to those. ---Another Believer(Talk)12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, the article does reads a bit promotional, like the section on reception sounds like something one would hang on their establishment's wall. But I don't think anything can be done about it since it's just the nature of the coverage. Per se there is nothing preventing an article which has a lower degree of coverage from becoming a good article though I do understand why there are apprehensions over it. Anyways I've completed the review and left some comments below, there are some minor issues but otherwise it more or less meets the criteria so I'm going to go ahead and promote it. Tayi ArajakateTalk13:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The separate section on description doesn't make sense, it's contents can be better integrated in the sections on history and reception. The first line seems to belong in history and the rest in reception.
The use of present perfect seems a bit odd for quotations in the section on description, could just use past tense as the quotations made at a specific point in time.
The line on George Floyd should probably mention the nature of vandalism (as that appears vague), the owners' response and specify that protesters did it.
"Outdoor seating had returned at both locations by September 2020." Past tense (i.e "was") makes more sense then using past perfect (i.e "had") here.
"The bar closed on March 19." Not sure this is verifiable from the citation, can you double check?
Pass
Neutral