Talk:Shanghai Tunnel Bar/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: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 16:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Another Believer (talk · contribs) at 18:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Prose

in Portland, Oregon's Old Town Chinatown neighborhood, in the United States. → "in the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood, Portland, Oregon."
- For many of my Good article reviews for restaurants, I've been asked to include national context (United States). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every information present in the lead should be there in the prose as well. United States is never repeated again in the prose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok! Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as BLTs — pipe 's' out of the link
- I'm not sure what you mean. Linking is correct as far as I can tell ([[BLT]]s). Can you clarify? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, its fine. I was reading in visual edit mode&nbsp... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
has been described as a "gruff but lovable" and "dank, brick-lined basement" — described by whom?
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorts of criminal enterprise". — the full-stop should be inside the quotes. It is there in the original quotes as well.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bar had at least five pinball machines, as of 2017 — its been 5 years in 2017. Any updates here?
- Nope! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then writing it as "as of ~~2021~~2022" would be more accurate, what do you think? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the source was published in 2017. I'd only update if there were a more recent source confirming the number of pinball machines. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
gave the bar a score of seven — seven out of ten? out of hundred? specify
- I've removed. The Oregonian article does not specific scale. I'm sure the scale exists somewhere but not easy to find. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for eating -- it's — perhaps, those two dashes (--) should be an em-dash (—)
- Agree. Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
$2 dollar — we have dollar symbol and well as 'dollar' written.
- This is a direct quote. Should we leave alone or adjust so not confusing to Wikipedia readers? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, removing the word 'dollar' does not change any meaning/view-point of the quote. MOS:CONFORM says that "A quotation is not a facsimile and, in most cases, it is not a requirement that the original formatting be preserved." I know that MOS is particularly for formatting punctuation, but in this case, I think there is no harm in adjusting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Multnomah county has never been mentioned in the article. Is it needed in the info-box?
- This is a basic template parameter which I've used on ~30 other Good articles for PDX restaurants, so I'd leave for consistency. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else to say about the article.

Images

Just an FYI, I plan to take photographs of the bar's exterior (and hopefully interior) as soon as possible, since I live in Portland. I've promoted ~30 Portland restaurant articles to Good status and so far an article being unillustrated has not prevented Good article promotion. Hope you understand! Thanks for reviewing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The image section is here just because it is part of my standard GA review format (see 1, 2)

File:Shanghai Tunnel Bar logo.jpeg needs stronger WP:NFCC. It currently has "Author or copyright owner" empty.
- I uploaded this image the same way I have all other restaurant logos. I've added 'Shanghai Tunnel Bar' as the author if that's helpful. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs, using this tool.
- Interesting. Was not familiar with this tool. Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting to be consistent with linking the newspaper/work in references. Willamette Week is linked in Ref#3, but not in Ref#4. WP:OL for linking newspapers/websites do not apply in citations (per MOS:REFLINK)

Thats it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, passing! Congrats! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 6 January 2022 (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.