Talk:Gage and Tollner/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: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 17:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• I am happy to begin reviewing this article. Bruxton (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead summarizes all of the main points in the article. It is three paragraphs long and the article is 6490 words. All of the information in the lead is covered in the article. Bruxton (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• The infobox provides all significant items related to the information in the article. There is a map and NRHP information. Bruxton (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Images

• The United States has Freedom of Panorama for buildings and public interiors so the images are free. They are also relevant and interesting. It looks like @Rhododendrites: ate the beautiful Baked Alaska at Gage and Tollner. the picture is wonderful. Bruxton (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Early years

• This is a great section with much information including the price of a meal in 1900. Women were banned from smoking is an interesting pre-suffrage tidbit.
• Consider adding information about this: One of the restaurant's co-owners, Marcus J. Ingalls, died there in February 1911 so that the reader's curiosity is satisfied. Like how he died? or? Bruxton (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done pinging @Epicgenius: to the nomination before final checks. Might be one item above this post that needs attention.

Ownership and use

• The references check out. The sections are detailed and accurate. The sources are all reliable. Great detail and I like the part about the milk crate discovery.

Cuisine and clientele

• Such a thorough and surprising part of the article. We also learn here that it was named as being one of the world’s best seafood restaurants, with a reference. Bruxton (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

References

• The article has 232 references. Earwig only alerts to properly attributed quotes. The sources are high quality. I have spot checked many of the references and found that the nominator has been thorough and has properly interpreted the sources without WP:CLOP. Bruxton (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Review Chart

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.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
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.	Yes
	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).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
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.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

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.