Jump to content

Talk:Regent Bakery and Cafe/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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 toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 21:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Let's eat! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 21:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:55, 17 December 2023 (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. The overall prose flows smoothly. I spotted no typos, and the grammar looks fine.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section adequately summarizes the article. Per MOS:LAYOUT, the article is correctly organized. Fiction and list incorporation policies are irrelevant for this article.
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. There is a reference section in the article, and it is correctly formatted.
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). Game Informer and PC Gamer are reliable sources per WP:VG/S. Eater is part of Vox Media. I presume The Seattle Times is reliable because it has editors. Reliable sources cite quotes and any material that is likely to be challenged.
2c. it contains no original research. Spotchecking proves that there is text-source integrity and therefore no original claims have been made.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Nothing too bad.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article contains information about what Regent's interior and exterior looks like, its menu, history, and how well it was received by critics. This article addresses the main aspects of the topic. However, I would like an explanation of how this bakery connects to Portal.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article stays on topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article is written from a neutral point of view. It does not try to promote the business, and it quotes any strong words.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Checking the article's history, I spot no edit wars at the time of this review.
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. The logo's fair use rationale is valid. The rest of the images are Another Believer's own work, meaning that the images can be shared and remixed as long as they are attributed.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The logo, exterior, and interior photos satisfy criterion 6B. They all show what the restaurant looks like.
7. Overall assessment. "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out."

Quickfail?

[edit]

Very minor nitpicks

[edit]
  • I'd recommend using the mdy template; the references' dates look cleaner that way. Adding it in myself.

Lead

[edit]
Extended content

Description

[edit]
[edit]
Extended content

History

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

Spotchecking

[edit]
  • I'll randomly select five references from the article.
  • Green tickY #1
    • Green tickY quaint, unassuming shop
    • Green tickY Regent was established in 2000.
    • Green tickY as good as you'll find in the city
  • Green tickY #9
    • Green tickY egg tarts
  • Green tickY #11
    • Green tickY green-tea cheesecake, oatmeal cookies, (on page 153)
  • Green tickY #18
    • Green tickY The Seattle Times said the baked goods "are the real deal".
  • Green tickY #20
    • Green tickY In Eater Seattle's 2020 overview of recommended eateries for squid and octopus take-out, Gabe Guarente said the Redmond location "has steadily grown a following over 20 years as a strong dim sum place" and wrote that the fried salt and pepper calamari "may be among the best in the city".

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: A couple times you've offered suggestions re: the cake (is a lie) / Portal / Swift. I asked for feedback about this on the article's talk page and over at WikiProject Video games. Based on feedback provided by User:PresN and User:SnowFire, I am reluctant to add any more detail to this article. I admit, I had expected video game editors would want to add more information, but I don't feel strongly about this and want to follow editor consensus. I would invite those editors to weigh in, or, if you want to strike your comments based on their feedback, it'd be helpful for me to know if I need to do anything further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Thanks for striking. I think I've resolved your concerns. Only thing outstanding is the "glowing bottles" bit, if you have a specific suggestion or request. Thanks again for reviewing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, passing this article... TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 18 December 2023 (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.