Talk:Quintonil/GA1

GA Review

Passed. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snatch! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Finished. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Copyedited article myself, so it should be good now; didn't find any typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not bombarded with words on the WTW list. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference section is available.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Plenty o' reliable sources here! We've got coverage from CNN, Time Out, Eater, The Infatuation, Bon Appetit, Restaurant, Bloomberg, and El Universal.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	According to Earwig, the top result is at a 24.8% similarity. While not alarming, a considerable amount of text from the article is quoted. It can be easily paraphrased.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Broad coverage of the restaurant's description, history, and reception can be found. This is adequate information for an article about a restaurant.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral; it does not try to promote or criticize the restaurant itself.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Logo is in the public domain. Restaurant is under CC BY 2.0. Rest of the images are freely licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	While the logo and restaurant building images are relevant, the eleven food images crammed into the description section don't seem to have a purpose. However, this isn't a major obstacle, so I'll let it slide. Captions are suitable.
	7. Overall assessment.	Yum!

Quickfail?

Y Article is stable.
Y Earwig top result: 24.8%. No severe copyright violations.
Y No mistakes in previous GA reviews to note.
Y No cleanup banners or citation needed tags.
Y No glaring errors.

Comment

@Tbhotch: I think this sentence should be moved to the Description section: "It has volcanic stone floors and wood and mirrored walls." ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 14:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

daily menu restaurant - As in the restaurant's menu is changed every day?

Yes. Does a term exist in English? Because I only found Menú del día

that are uncommon to taste in dishes - Tried rewording it to "that are uncommon in dishes". That correct?
Could remove the citation. The fact is cited later in the article.

Removed

Description

"are brought" -> "are sourced"?

Changed

Should there be a separate section for the gallery?
Dishes include common ingredients like beans, squash, various chiles, and mushrooms - So like, the ingredients are dishes by themselves?

Reworded, I think.

A variation of the Mole Madre sold at Pujol is also available. - Not sure why this is mentioned if the reader doesn't know what the dish is.

I linked it to the mole itself

The wine menu is mainly European, with Mexican variants, - Does that mean the wine mostly comes from Europe?
Are the Mexican beverages on the wine menu?

Reworded, I think, for both.

Was the Entomophagy Festival a one-time thing? If so, when did it happen?
but business casual is commonly seen - Seems travel guide-esque or like a piece of advice you're trying to give to the reader. Should this be removed?

I removed the statement.

History

Not sure why we need a link to "high school"
and they became a couple - Kinda feels awkward and unnecessary to squeeze this detail in. It doesn't sound right to me.
Cut "according to them"
into their homes like friends - Don't you mean neighbors?

Reworded, for these three points.

they even lived on the second floor of the restaurant for five years - I'm not sure if this is what directly inspired them to open a restaurant with a "family concept". It seems like trivia to me.
contribute to the menus with their reimagining of Quintonil's recipes -> "...provide new dishes"?

Reworded

Reception

infrequent vegetables and herbs - What?
Tried replacing the Bon Appetit sentence with an actual quote from the source. Not sure if that works.
~~Shouldn't the Restaurant magazine ranks go in chronological order?~~

Spotchecking

Five sources. Go! (References of this revision.)
#6 N - Neither this source nor #7 mentions the nine-course tasting menu or the a la carte menu.
#10 Y Y Y
#18 N - Doesn't really mention the "cooking style" part
#25 Y
#29 Y
Changed and reworded. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:35, 5 July 2024 (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.