Talk:The Box Tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Box Tree has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 23, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Yorkshire (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon The Box Tree is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Box Tree/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. See below
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Good
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See below
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Good
2c. it contains no original research. Good
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See below
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Good, both positive and negative reviews
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Good, only edits those by the author.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Good. An image of some of the food would be nice, but I don't doubt that this restaurant is pricey so I won't hold it against you.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good
7. Overall assessment. Pending

Comments[edit]

1[edit]

  • "and was also served with a duck terrine and pistachios." - Still?
  • Well it's from a review from last month. I've changed it to "and foie gras has also since been served with a duck terrine and pistachios" so that it doesn't get dated. Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "but could not bring himself to make certain dishes such as chicken chasseur or melon boats." - Could not bring himself is awkward. A better construction?
  • Changed to "but decided not to make certain..." Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "It was originally owned by Reid and Long who initially operated the premises as a tea room." - Doubt that it was originally owned by Reid and Long if it was built in the 1720s. Clarify.
  • Quite right, that is downright confusing! I've changed it to: "It was purchased by Reid and Long in 1962 who initially operated the premises as a tea room." Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "White returned to the restaurant as a consultant during a spell in 1994, something which lasted two months ended in a court case as Avis successfully brought proceedings against the chef with damages of £880 awarded after he damaged a ceiling during his time there." - Too long, should be trimmed/split.
  • Changed to "White returned to the restaurant as a consultant in 1994, which lasted two months and ended in a court case against the chef with damages of £880 awarded after he damaged a ceiling." Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The restaurant lost the Michelin star in the 2003 edition of the guide was no longer included in either the AA Restaurant Guide and the Good Food Guide." - Missing a word
  • Inserted "and" at the appropriate point. Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "After the Guellers leased the restaurant from Avis in 2004, it regained a Michelin star within five months of re-opening." - Reads awkwardly. Any better phrasings?
  • Changed to "The Guellers leased the restaurant from Avis in 2004. Within five months of re-opening it regained a Michelin star." Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

3[edit]

  • "The change of chef also changed the style of food served" - To?
  • Ended up having to insert a quote as there wasn't really a way I could reword "Mediterranean slant". :) Miyagawa (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The lede does not contain any information from #Description or #Reception.
  • I've reworked the lead to insert elements from those sections, and to make it flow a little better. Miyagawa (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Others[edit]

  • FN2
a: Supports "opening under Malcolm Reid and Colin Long in 1962"; no close paraphrasing
b: Verified, no close paraphrasing
c: Verified, no close paraphrasing
d: Verified, no close paraphrasing
e: Fails verification: Source suggests Bassey visited, but does not support that she was a regular. No close paraphrasing
f: Verified, no close paraphrasing
  • FN7
a: Verified, no close paraphrasing
b: Verified, no close paraphrasing
c: Verified, no close paraphrasing
d: Verified, no close paraphrasing
e: Verified, no close paraphrasing
  • FN17
a: Verified "He would later recall in his book White Heat that the restaurant made him obsessed with food", no close paraphrasing
b: Fails verification: Doesn't imply "dated" to me, but that the meat may be going rotten, no close paraphrasing
c: Verified, no close paraphrasing
  • FN26
a: Verified, no close paraphrasing
b: Verified "in 2012 helped to celebrate the restaurant's fiftieth anniversary"; no close paraphrasing
  • Edited both issues, should be fine now. Miyagawa (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

  • On hold for one week to deal with the issues. Please double check your references. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, I think I've covered everything. If there are any other points, please let me know. I had hoped for photographs of the dishes, but unfortunately Flickr let me down for once (having come through on a couple of other recent restaurant articles). Miyagawa (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's it, I'm passing this as a GA. Perhaps to celebrate you would like to review another GA: there is quite a backlog, after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)