Talk:FLIP Burger Boutique/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

I fail to see how this article should be deleted. As far as saying that "an individual restaurant is not per se notable enough to include in an encyclopedia", I would disagree with your opinion in this case. There are a lot of reliable sources that cover of its conception, how the food is prepared, etc. This is a nationally-renowned restaurant, and as such, it warrants an article. As far as being written like an advertisements, all I can do is make a few edits in the language. —DAP388 (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, DAP388, I agree that the quantity of references means that the article asserts notability, however it may be referred to AfD for a deletion discussion if the references don't bear this out. I do think it's written like an advertisement and should be edited to remove anything remotely promotional. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are five major problems: 1) restaurant reviews and certainly press releases do not establish notability, however I will give you the WP and WSJ articles as establishing that; 2) some of the sources are not major e.g. Delta Sky magazine and Go - the choice of these should be pared down. 3) so many of the reviews are quoted with the quotes not providing any substance, e.g. ""The burgers draw long lines at all hours, as much for the meat as for sides like sweet potato tater tots" etc. etc. is just rattling off a list of the popular menu items. It doesn't add anything to the understanding of why Flip is important - if it's about the menu, then it should be in the menu section 4) finally, the language used is not that of an encyclopedia but that of a press release, e.g. a critic "affirmed" "articulated" or had "synonymous sentiments". 5) the long quotes about the french fries - inappropriate. If there is an innovative technique to describe, then you can do that but you can't just quote the owner/chef waxing poetic about it - this isn't an interview it's an encyclopedia.

I don't really accept DAP388's comment that "all he/she can do is make a few edits", as he/she did *write* the article. I don't mean to be overly critical or jump all over the author, but as it is the article is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia both in content and tone. I would be glad to give it a go at editing but would likely have to remove so much of the content, I would like to give the author a chance as well. The writing is (for its style) extremely polished so I am guessing that the author might be able to write in a neutral, encyclopedic style as well. Keizers (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've made some substantial edits to remove fluff and make this article more palatable. Please someone inform me if it gets bad again, or I'll sic Ray's Hell Burger on em.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review February 2012

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. GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Flip Burger Boutique/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Baffle gab1978 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I haven't done a review before, but as I inadvertently opened the review, I think I should commence it. Other reviewers are invited to add their comments too. Having rescued it from speedy deletion, I heavily copy-edited the prose to clarify and condense the text, but otherwise I have not contributed to the content of the article. So I'll commence the review according to Wikipedia:Good article criteria: 1. Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Infobox is present. As a major copy-editor, I cannot comment upon the quality of the prose. There don't appear to be any copyright issues; no evidence of cut/paste in the article's history. The lead section needs expansion to cover all important aspects of the article in a neutral way (include negative reviews and other negative aspects). Concerns about advertising have not been fully dealt with. The article is currently being discussed at Articles for Deletion. 2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;[3] and (c) it contains no original research. The article uses in-line citations from a variety of reliable sources in cite format. The reliability of About.com is questionable - see here. The company's own website is cited twice in the 'Menu' section; one of the restaurant's owners' website is cited extensively in the 'History' section. 3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The text contains irrelevant details including lengthy quotes from the owners, especially in History section. 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. No negative or neutral reviews are present in 'Critical reception'; likewise the 'Cultural impact' section does not cover any negative or neutral effects on the surrounding area. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars of content disputes, but the article is very young at time of review. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Two images that comply with the criteria are present. My Summary: The first important issue is the template message concerning advertising (note - I added this when rescuing the article from speedy deletion. I also heavily copy-edited the article to clarify the text - see 'history'). Although the article's notability is still being discussed with a view to deletion. I think notability is adequately shown in the references here. The prose is padded out with unnecessary quotations, especially in the 'History' section. Neutrality is also an important issue here; I think the article is unduly positive, although not advertising as such, no criticisms are included. The article needs to include negative and neutral critical reviews as well as the positive ones, and the same applies with the 'Cultural impact' section. Until these issues are addressed and the AfD is closed I don't think the article can be reviewed in greater detail. *'Additional comment - an editor has cleaned up the article, so please bear this in mind when reading my comments above. I will comment further in a few day's time. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I'll try to address the issues as soon as I can (probably by Saturday). Sorry for the late reply. —DAP388 (talk) 1:10, 01 February 2012 (UTC) Second review As the article has changed somewhat since my last review, I'm going to give this a second chance. So here we go: 1. Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and Leader: It has been credited as increasing competition... should be It has been credited with increasing competition. Otherwise the leader is clearly and concisely written. 'History': Barry Mills conceived the restaurant's concept as wanting to expand the definition of a what he thought was a hamburger. Who is Barry Mills? Explain that he's one of the company's founders. conceived the restaurant's concept and wanting to expand the definition of a what he thought was a hamburger. are confusing; that sentence should be rewritten to be clearer and more concise. being bound to a traditional diner-style burder. This could be a lot clearer, say something like; "the owners did not want to be bound by stylistic traditions". What's a burder, is this a typo? Ron Stewart, one of the owners of the first Atlanta franchise, was born and raised in Birmingham. and Mills used architecture firm ai3 to design the interior of the restaurants.- why are these points significant? Why should readers care where the owners were born? Is the building architecturally important or interesting? New York City and Miami have also been noted as potential sites for new outlets - could be clearer. In August 2011, chef Mark Nanna left FLIP, with no word as to what his next endeavor would be - explain why this is significant. 'Menu': Is there a comma missing between sweet potato and tater tots? If this a single item, use a single wikilink; otherwise this section is clearly and concisely written with no grammatical or spelling problems. 'Critical reception': Furthermore the newspaper remarked that the decor, as a "carbon copy" of the original Westside location, "except slightly larger", was "somehow less cool as a result" could be rewritten to be more concise; 'as' doesn't really work as a sentence clause connector. You could say; The newspaper also said that the decor was a "carbon copy" of the Westside location, "except slightly larger", and "somehow less cool as a result" or similar. 'Cultural impact': initiating and increasing competition - which? Was there no competition between burger bars in Atlanta before 2008? This section could easily be merged with 'Critical reception'. (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead - The lead doesn't fully summarise the article; the menu and cultural impact aren't included. Layout: History could be merged into two larger paragraphs, eliminating the final, single-sentence paragraph. Words to watch - no problems there. Fiction - does not apply. list incorporation - does not apply; no lists in this article. 2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; All sections have references, most of these are in cite web format. (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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; How is a press release on the director's blog] a reliable source? How does this relate to the first paragraph of History? You could use that reference for the 'menu' section. The company's website is used twice to reference the 'Menu' section - why when there are at least two reliable, third-party sources that could equally be used? All the remaining references provided in the article check out fine. (c) it contains no original research. References, mostly from reliable sources (see above), are provided for all claims, critical reviews and possibly contentious material. 3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic I think the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. I'd like to see more depth in the 'History' section; how did the company form? Why isn't Richard Blais' role mentioned here since he's mentioned in almost every reference I've checked? He seems to be a major player in this company. The short 'Menu' section addresses the food but the article tells us almost nothing about the 'lauded' ambiance and decor, about which I found material in at least one reference. (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I think the article's text is very focussed. 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. I think this is a great improvement over the earlier version of this article I reviewed in this respect. Both positive and negative reviews are now present and the hyperbole and waffle are gone. One concern; the use of a quotation box to highlight a negative review when a positive review isn't thus treated strikes me as biased; either remove this box or add a similar one to highlight a positive review. Apart from that, the article is neutral. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article has undergone major changes in the past week but seems to have stabilised. there are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Thee images are present, all with suitable fair-use rationales and copyright notices. (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images are relevant to the article. Two have suitable captions; the logo in the infobox doesn't have a caption. My closing comments I'm glad to see major improvements in the quality of this article, and that the issues of advertising, over-quoting and advertising I mentioned in the previous review have been dealt with. Negative reviews provide much-needed balance and the article no longer reads like and advertisement. The lead should summarise the whole article, there remain some problems with the prose, and the company's website is used where an independent source certainly covers this aspect of the article. I'll place the article on hold for seven days to allow the AfD to close and the issues raised here to be dealt with. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC) ("On Hold" template removed by reviewer on closing). Thank you for the thorough review! There is definitely a lot of things in the article to be dealt with before it is ready to become a GA article. I'm not confident that it will pass, so feel free to fail the nomination. I'll answer the problems of the article and will probably ask for a copyedit. Sorry for the late reply. I should have notified you that I may not reply in time. I was studying for the ACT. Again, thanks for the review! :) —DAP388 (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Hi DAP388, thanks for your reply, I'll comment further when I close the review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, I'm unable to pass this article at the moment because the improvements suggested have not been made. I hope my suggestions are useful and that you will feel confident to nominate it again when you are ready. The company and its outlets will surely garner further press coverage which should be used to expand the article. I wish you all the best with your studies and with your future editing. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 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. |}