Talk:Pearl Tavern/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: Gerald Waldo Luis (talk · contribs) 15:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! Responding to your talk message: on the contrary actually; I was looking for GANs recently and first looked at the restaurant section but found no nominations, so thanks for this one! On a brief scroll this article looks good, expect a complete review soon. Oh and this is probably poor advertising but, I also have a peer review still unreviewed, if you're interested you can take a look at it, but no pressure of course. Gerald WL 15:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Logo needs alt text.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linking fried chicken is a bit of an WP:OVERLINK in my opinion.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, I would link to flannel within plaid, since there's many kinds of plaids and a link would clear out the ambiguity.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mind putting a short description of what ChefStable is?
- Just a restaurant group. I assumed "restaurateur" made this clear. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Bulleit Bourbon and Budweiser within "Bulleit" and "Bud".
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest removing links on "the O" and "PoMo" as duplicate links.
- Disagree. The average reader does not know what "the O" or "PoMo" means, especially if they read this part of the article before seeing full mention of The Oregonian or Portland Monthly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  How about changing them to "[The Oregonian]" and "[Portland Monthly]"? But if you disagree with that too, I'll let this pass. Gerald WL 03:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Don't feel strongly, but I think leaving the text alone is fine; those who get the references don't need to click on the links, and those who do can click on the link for context. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Another Believer, aight then, with that resolved, this GAN is Passed. Great job with this! Gerald WL 04:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest moving the portal box to See also, as it's common for it to be placed there if it doesn't interfere with the Reflist.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason the Business Journal article can't be used as reference? Asking since I can't access the article. If unusable, I suggest moving it to a Further reading section, if appropriate.
- The article is mostly an interview, so related to the topic but not ideal as an inline citation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, wonderful job! Consulting the previous restaurant GANs, this one seems broad enough; it stays focused, is neutral, and there are no edit wars or CV.
- Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The logo image needs an alt text. The non-free rationale looks all good to me, and I don't think we need to wait for the bot to delete the previous version like I remember doing at a GAN (tip for future: if you wanna resize a copyrighted image yourself, go to this calculator). A photo of the place's location would be great, but it's fine for now.

Logo has alt text. I plan to take a photograph of the building next time I'm nearby. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

All sources cited are reliable, consisting of reputable websites, newspapers, mags, and radio. No original research.

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.