Talk:Schwa (restaurant)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello there! This is an excellent article :-D I've checked thoroughly, and it matches every ga criterion; the only thing I think it needs is to remove the link to the restaurant website... which would prevent any editor down the road from screeching "WP:SPAM!!" (I feel a little spammy, in fact). If you'll remove that, I'll pass the article immediately! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for volunteering your time to review the article - I appreciate it. Thank you also for your kind words about the article's quality. :) Now in regards to the link, unless I am misunderstanding links to a subject's official websites are encouraged per WP:External links#What to link. If, however, you still feel it should be removed, let me know and I will be happy to comply. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the spamminess either. I don't see the distinction between the "Further reading" and "External links" sections here, though, so perhaps you should merge them. I think you can also safely drop the link to the official site from "External links", since it is already in the infobox (that may have been what Rcej meant). Ucucha 01:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool... then I'll go with it as is per both consensus and paper! Passorz :) heh, just a mention; I love the fact that if someone eating there asks to see the wine list, they're told "You gotta bring your own." LOL... that is beyond cool, for so many reasons! Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Schwa (restaurant) passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass