Talk:The Checkers (restaurant)/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: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 17:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

" is a restaurant with rooms" -does that make it an inn, or is it a Peter Stringfellow type of restaurant ;-)?

Ha! A restaurant with rooms is the correct terminology for when a restuarant has one or two hotel-style rooms on site. They're often at Michelin star restaurants outside London where they enable people to travel a long distance for the restaurant and then stay overnight. It would have been interesting to see the difference in the number of rooms avaliable compared to when it was a fully fledged hotel - because it wouldn't have been much of a hotel with only three rooms. I had the sudden idea to attempt to guess the old website on archive.org but didn't have any luck. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"There are two main rooms in the restaurant, and a three rooms on the hotel side" -not clear what the other three rooms are

I think I was trying to avoid referring to it as a hotel, and promptly ended up doing it anyway. I've changed it to "three hotel rooms". Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2016, it switched to only using set menus, and has previously served both modern and classic French dishes." -continuity/chronology seems a bit odd here, if you changed "and has" to "having previously" that would be OK.

I've switched around the arguments to make more sense. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description

"The dining room has low-slung beams, and has an open brick fireplace" -rep of has, you can get away with just "The dining room has low-slung beams, and an open brick fireplace"

Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"from fallen tree" -"a fallen tree"?

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and a cheese]] -check link

Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Deserts served" -do they come with lizards and cacti?;-)

I wouldn't go mentioning that near Heston Blumenthal. ;) Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1870, the inn was run by Charles Williams.[12] During the early 2000s, the building was operated a hotel and pub,.[" -check punctuation. 130 years is a big history gap, really nothing in 20th century?

Added in the missing "as". I searched all the available resources I have and couldn't find anything in the hundred year gap other than someone dying of old age while staying there - I can only presume that it continued in various hands as a pub and inn. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The credited the ability"?

I got a bit fruity with the wording there - I've rewritten the line. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"She called the atmosphere "comfortable" and that it had " -stated that it had?

Added. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He suggested that the individuality of the restaurant had been hampered, and it was conforming to the expectation of Michelin inspectors. " -a little awkward

Redrafted. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote "bland".

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Matthew Norman gave the restaurant three and a half stars out of five, following a visit in early 2014 for The Daily Telegraph. He suggested that the individuality of the restaurant had been hampered, and it was conforming to the expectation of Michelin inspectors. Norman criticised the lack of atmosphere, but praised the both the soufflé and a French onion soup which was served as starters. Of the two main courses he tried, the poached monkfish dish was described as bland, while the pork belly dish was described by his colleague as "superb, just the right side of too intimately piggy". Norman concluded that the restaurant was a "slick operation", but "character, vibrancy and fun had been slaughtered on the altar of satisfying the inspectorate".[3]" -needs a copyedit and restructure for concision. Where you mention to lack of atsmophere that is always a good place to add the character vibracy quote.

I've gone through and copyedited it with the intention of reducing it. It'd been the first review added, so started off being a bit bigger than expected - I'd thought I'd find similar reviews from Jay Rayner etc, but didn't have any luck finding them. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks as always for reviewing. I forgot how much I liked working up restaurant articles. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how I first came across you on wikipedia, I always thought of you as "the restaurant guy"!

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.