Talk:The Crab Cooker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this one up as part of the GAN backlog drive. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 00:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review failed

Criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'm failing this review immediately per WP:GAFAIL because it is a long way from satisfying WP:GACR#1 and it has also failed WP:GACR#2c. I made the following notes as I worked my way through the article and hopefully these will help to improve it so that it might be nominated again:

No need to say it is a Southern California restaurant in the same sentence as its address including the state.

The restaurant is ... located at 22nd & Newport Blvd doesn't make sense but, looking at the image, it's obviously on a street corner so amend to located on the corner of 22nd (Street?) and Newport Boulevard.

Name 22nd in full – e.g., 22nd Street.

Use "and", not an ampersand.

Write Boulevard in full.

It was established in 1951. Amend to The restaurant was established in 1951 because the previous sentence is about the former bank.

It is considered a local landmark. That view needs to be discussed in the narrative with sources as otherwise it consitutes POV.

In 1969, Venture Magazine rated it as one of the top two restaurants in the world. This is not in the narrative.

The second paragraph of the lead is a single sentence, which is deprecated, and it also contains information that is not in the narrative. Anything in the lead must be summarising information in the narrative – that is the essential purpose of the lead.

Originally located at 28th Street and Marina doesn't make sense. What is Marina and what is its relationship to 28th Street?

Clarification is needed of the original and current location. Were 28th Street and Marina the same location as 22nd Street and Newport Boulevard? If so, when were they renamed? If not, where was the former address and how far from the current one; when and why did Roubian relocate?

the restaurant got its start when... – amend to the restaurant was established when...

There is biographical information about Bob Roubian in both the first and last paragraphs of the history section. This should all be together.

The restaurant is known for its casual atmosphere. There is nothing unique or unusual about that so why does it begin a paragraph?

Is the giant shark a model, a painting, or what? Is it the "iconic fish sign" mentioned twice later?

What is the attraction for tourists of eating off paper plates?

Tourists "visit to sample the cuisine" and it is after this that the cuisine should be described (not in the lead, as above).

It is not uncommon to see patrons waiting in lines snaking down the street. Change to: It is not uncommon to see long queues outside.

Amend "...the president would have to wait along with rest of the people" to "with the rest".

The story about Nixon is incomplete. Did he queue or eat elsewhere?

There is nothing in the cited source about the reference to the restaurant's real name by the TV programme cast member. This is original research and fails WP:GACR#2c.

Roubian's successor, Jim Wasko, should be named.

In the "Temporary closure" section, there is more confusion about original location and current site. The whole paragraph needs revision to clarify the sequence of events.

The bit about the fish sign motto should be merged with the earlier mention of the sign.

The "see also" items don't add anything of value and the section should be removed.

I would say in summary that the article was nominated too soon and should have been throroughly proofread and copyedited beforehand. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]